Smt Sharmila Dantuluri

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT:­ SMT. D. SHARMILA,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANNAVARAM. 

TUESDAY, THIS THE 24 th DAY OF MARCH, 2020.

O.S. No. 12 OF 2019

Between: Kolusu Issaku, S/o Peda Raghavulu, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Resident of Chikkavaram Village, Gannavaram

Mandal, Krishna District.....Plaintiff.

AND Dokku Rambabu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Cultivation, Resident of B.B.Gudem

Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District....Defendant.

This suit is coming on 17­03­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Ch.Anjaiah, Advocate for the Defendant and upon hearing the arguments and gone through the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.37,200/­ [Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Two

Hundred Only] being the principal and interest due on a promissory note

dated 20­09­2016 executed by the defendant, in favour of Plaintiff for

Rs.25,000/­ repayable with interest @ 24% p.a., with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/­ from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments in the Plaint are as follows:­

The Defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees

Twenty Five Thousand Only) from the Plaintiff on 20­09­2016 for the purpose of his family expenses and on the even date, he had executed a demand

Promissory Note in favour of the Plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to him or to his order on demand. Subsequently inspite of repeated demands and requests made by the Plaintiff for repayment 2 of promissory note debt due under the aforesaid promissory note, but the defendant used to postpone the same from time to time. Finally on 16­06­2018 the Plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the Defendant, demanding him to repay the said debt and hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file this suit.

3.The Defendant filed his written statement denying all the material averments in the Plaint and putting the Plaintiff to strict proof of the same.

The brief averments in the above Written Statement are as follows:

The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and he never executed any promissory note at any point of time on 20­09­2016. The defendant has no necessity to borrow any amount from the plaintiff or from anybody at any point of time. The plaintiff and defendant jointly done cultivation of the lands by taking lease, at that time the plaintiff has obtained blank signed promissory note from the defendant towards security. The plaintiff and the defendant settled the ‘maktha’ amount long back, but the plaintiff has not returned the blank signed promissory note of the defendant, representing that the same was misplaced and promised to return the same as and when traced. Now taking advantage of the possession of the blank signed promissory note with the plaintiff, the plaintiff has fabricated and created the suit promissory note and filed the present case on hand with all false and untenable allegations and as such the suit is not maintainable under law and is liable to be dismissed. The defendant also do not know the attestor or the scribe of suit promissory note and they are strangers to the defendant. The suit promissory note is devoid of consideration and as such the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount on the basis of fabricated promissory note. The plaintiff might have colluded with the attestor and scribe and got existence of the alleged suit promissory note and filed the suit to have wrongful loss. The claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. There is no cause of action arose for the suit and the alleged cause of action is created and invented for 3 the purpose of filing the suit and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial?

1) Whether the suit promissory note dated 20­09­2016 is true, valid and binding on the Defendant?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated?

3) Whether Plaintiff is entitled the suit claim, as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, the Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 & A2. On behalf of the defendant, he himself examined as D.W.1 and one Movva Venkata Rao has examined as D.W.2., on behalf of

Defendant, but no document was exhibited on his behalf.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and also the learned Counsel for the Defendant. Perused the record including the evidence on record.

POINT:

7.The issues 1 to 3 are inter­related, so they are taken up together for consideration. In a suit for recovery of money basing on Promissory Note, the burden mainly lies on the Plaintiff to prove that the Suit Promissory Note is true, valid and supported by consideration. In order to discharge the burden cast upon him, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked suit promissory Note as Ex.A1, Office Copy of Legal Notice with postal acknowledgment No.4843 as Ex.A2. The evidence of P.W.1 is in consonance with the averments in the Plaint. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the

Defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/­ [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only] from him on 20­09­2016 for the purpose of his family necessities agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% p.a. and on the same day, he 4 executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in his favour promising to repay the said amount with agreed rate of interest either to him or to his order on demand. It is also the evidence of P.W.1 that subsequently, despite repeated demands made by him, the defendant failed to discharge the said debt and then on 16.06.2018, he got issued the original of Ex.A.2 legal notice to the defendant.

8.The learned counsel for the defendant has cross examined P.W.1 at length. During the cross examination, it was suggested to P.W.1 that he and defendant jointly cultivated the lands on lease, at that time he has obtained blank signed promissory note from the defendant towards security. It is also suggested to P.W.1 that defendant did not borrow an amount of Rs.25,000/­ from him and Ex.A1 was executed by the defendant towards payment of maktha amount to P.W.1. It is also suggested to P.W.1 that he sold away the entire crop to one Kancherla Krishna without knowledge of defendant and received entire sale proceeds. All these suggestions given by the learned counsel for the defendant were categorically denied by the plaintiff. Since, none of the suggestions given by the learned counsel for the defendant were admitted by P.W.1, there is nothing in the cross examination which could support the version of the defendant.

9.P.W.1 stood to the test of cross examination by giving details of the transaction in the like manner. No contradictions or discrepancies were found in his evidence, regarding the suit pronote transaction. In fact, this Court opines that, in the very written statement the defendant pleaded that his signature was obtained on blank promissory note by the plaintiff in connection with lease transaction, and that Ex.A1 is devoid of consideration, from which defence it can be inferred that, the defendant is not denying his signature on

Ex.A1, but says it to have come to existence otherwise. The plea of the defendant indeed had helped the plaintiff in discharging initial burden cast upon the plaintiff of proving the execution of Ex.A1 by the defendant. As the 5

Plaintiff proved the transaction under Ex.A1 Suit Promissory Note, the presumption U/sec.118 (a) of Negotiable Instruments Act shall be drawn in his favour. It is settled law that once the execution of Promissory Note and transaction under Ex.A1 is proved, the presumption U/sec.118(a) of Negotiable

Instruments Act shall be drawn in favour of the Plaintiff and then the burden shifts to the Defendant to rebut the said presumption by preponderance of probability.

10.In order to discharge the factual burden shifted on him, the defendant has examined himself as D.W.1 and the tractor owner who used to plough the joint lease hold lands of P.W.1 and D.W.1 with his tractor as D.W.2.

In his chief examination affidavit, D.W.1 reiterated the same facts which were stated in the written statement. It is the contention of the defendant that plaintiff and defendant jointly done cultivation of the lands by taking lease, at that time the plaintiff has obtained blank signed promissory note from the defendant towards security. The plaintiff and the defendant settled the ‘maktha’ amount long back, but the plaintiff has not returned the blank signed promissory note of the defendant, representing that the same was misplaced and promised to return the same as and when traced. He further contended that he did not execute Ex.A1 promissory note for an amount of Rs.25,000/­ in favour of P.W.1, who filed the present suit by using said signed blank pronote to get wrongful gain from him. In his written statement, the defendant contended that the plaintiff has fabricated the suit Promissory Note taking advantage of the blank Promissory Note given by him in connection with the lease transaction and there is no cause of action for filing this suit. It is well settled that mere putting suggestions to plaintiff that the suit pronote is a forged and fabricated one would not suffice. The defendant has to take a probable defence and bring on record such material which would probablise his case and capable of being accepted by the court.

6

11.In fact, defendant has examined the tractor owner who used to plough the joint lease hold lands of himself and P.W.1 as D.W.2, who in his chief affidavit spoke that he ploughed the joint lease hold land of P.W.1 and

D.W.1, with his tractor in the year 2015­10 and D.W.1 paid the entire tractor charges to him, but this Court having perused his evidence who in his cross examination stated that, he cannot say the amount of hiring charges paid by

D.W.1 to him, due to ploughing of joint lease hold land of P.W.1 and D.W.1.

Further D.Ws.1 and 2 failed to produce any evidence to show that Kancharla

Krishna paid sale proceeds of crop to the plaintiff only. 

12.If at all the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff obtained signed blank pronote from him for lease transaction is true, he ought to have issued any notice on his own when the plaintiff failed to return the blank signed promissory note even after settlement of maktha amount. No prudent man would exhibit, such a callous attitude in such a situation. Further there is also no proof to show that the plaintiff obtained blank singed promissory note from the defendant towards joint cultivation of lease hold land. Defendant cannot produce any evidence to show that he paid all the maktha amount, to the plaintiff without any default. Perhaps this Court opines that, if the defendant had examined Kancharla Krishna, who happened to be the purchaser of crop yielded in the joint lease hold land and from whom the plaintiff received entire sale proceeds of the crop, then it could have substantiated the plea of defendant to some extent. But without any such exercise, when the very evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 does not provide any material atleast to form an opinion that, the plaintiff had sold the yielding crop to

Kancharla Krishna. But the mere oral assertions of D.Ws.1 and 2 that, D.W.1 was joint holder of lease land cultivated by the plaintiff, or the plaintiff received entire sale proceeds of crop yielded in their joint lease hold land from one

Kancharla Krishna is not proved. In which event how far the contention of 7 defendant that, he signed on Ex.A1 in blank in connection with lease transaction is believable. Therefore, except the oral assertions of the defendant, there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to support or to at least probabilise his defence.

13.Seen from any angle, the contention put forward by the defendant does not appear to be convincing and trustworthy. Consequently, based on the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it has to be held that suit claim is proved and he is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintiff.

ISSUE No.4:­

14.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for a sum of

Rs.37,200/­ (Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the principal amount of

Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a. on the principal amount of

Rs.25,000/­ (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) from the date of decree to till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 24th day of March, 2020.

PRINICIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED:

For Plaintiff:

PW1 :19­12­2019Kolusu Issaku, Plaintiff.

For Defendant:

DW1 : 25­02­2020Dokku Rambabu, Defendant. DW2 : 06­03­2020Movva Venkata Rao, 3rd party.

8

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 :20­09­2016Original Promissory Note executed by Defendant in favour of PW1 for Rs.25,000/­. Ex.A2 :16­06­2018Office copy of legal notice.

For Defendant: ­Nil­

PRINICIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GANNAVARAM.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT:­ SMT. D. SHARMILA,

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GANNAVARAM. 

TUESDAY, THIS THE 24 th DAY OF MARCH, 2020.

O.S. No. 12 OF 2019

Between: Kolusu Issaku, S/o Peda Raghavulu, Hindu, aged about 58 years, Resident of Chikkavaram Village, Gannavaram

Mandal, Krishna District.....Plaintiff.

AND Dokku Rambabu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged about 40 years, Cultivation, Resident of B.B.Gudem

Village, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District....Defendant.

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.37,200/­ [Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Only] being the principal and interest due on a promissory note

dated 20­09­2016 executed by the defendant, in favour of Plaintiff for

Rs.25,000/­ repayable with interest @ 24% p.a., with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., on the principal amount of Rs.25,000/­ from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs of the suit.

2)The value of the suit for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction is Rs.37,200/­ Under Section 50(1) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act, on which a court fee of Rs.2,026/­ is paid under Section 20 of Schedule I, Art. 1(a) of A.P.C.F & S.V Act.

3)Cause of action for the suit arose on 20­09­2016, when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/­ from the Plaintiff and executed a promissory note, agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a. either to him or to his order on demand; and on 16­06­2018, when the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant, demanding him to repay the said debt due under promissory note and subsequently at B.B.Gudem village, Gannavaram Mandal, where the Suit Promissory Note was executed, which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

4) Plaint presented on : 20­09­2018

5)Plaint is taken on File : 23­02­2019

6) This suit is coming on 17­03­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri S.V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri Ch.Anjaiah, Advocate for the Defendant and upon hearing the arguments and gone through the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree:

i) That the suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.37,200­ [Rupees Thirty Seven Thousand and Two Hundred Only] with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of Decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum on the Principal amount of Rs.25,000/­(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) from the date of decree till the date of realization ; 10 ii) That the Defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.2,028/­(Rupees Two Thousand and Twenty Eight Only) towards costs of suit and do bear his own costs of Rs. NIL (as no bill of costs is filed)

Given under my Hand and the Seal of this Court, on this the 16th day of March, 2020. 

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GANNAVARAM.

MEMO. OF COSTS FOR

Sl.PlaintiffDefendant No. 

1.Stamp on Vakalat2­00

2.Stamp on Plaint2,026­00 3Stamp on Process­­No bill of 4Advocate Fee­­Costs is filed

5.Junior Advocate Fee­­

6.Publication Charges­­

7.Typing Charges­­ 8Writing Charges­­ 2,028­00 Total (Institutional costs only since no bill of costs filed)

P.J.C.J.,GVM.

NOTE: The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record/ will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years from the date of decree.

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :: 

GANNAVARAM

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM.

WEDNESDAY THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.

C.C. No.173/2019

Between:

The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police,

Atkuru Police Station, Vijayawada City. .. Complainant.

And:

Kukkala Durga Prasad, S/o Posiyya, aged about 26 years, R/o D.No.9­351, Vemagiri Village, Jakkampudi Nagar, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.District, Driver of Raja Travels Bus

bearing No.AP­02­W­3789. .. Accused.

This case is coming on 24­09­2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri T. Venkaiah, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Atkuru Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304­A IPC and Sec.134 (a) &

(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, in Cr. No.39/2018 of Atkuru Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a) The complainant/L.W.1 – Vemuri Kumari is the wife of deceased

Vemuri Venkateswara Rao. On 21­10­2018 during morning hours, the deceased

Venkateswara Rao along with L.W.3 – Jarugu Adinarayana and L.W.4 – Jarugu

Srinivasa Rao (co­workers), were proceeding to Thotagudem village, Pedapadu

Mandal, W.G.District, on two vehicles i.e., the deceased proceeding on his Honda

Activa bearing No.AP­16­ED­6276 and L.Ws.3 & 4 proceeding on their motorcycles.

When they reached near Usha Rama Engineering College, Telaprolu village, the accused being the driver of Raja Private Travels Bus bearing No.AP­02­W­3789, while proceeding on NH­16 road from Vijayawada side to Eluru side, at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn and when reached to the scene, dashed against the motor vehicle of Venkateswara Rao. As a result of which, Venkateswara Rao fell down on the road along with his vehicle and the tyres of his bus ran over him. He received severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

(b) L.W.1 preferred a report to L.W.13­SI of Police, who registered the same as a case in Cr.No.39/2018 U/s.304­A IPC and investigated into. He during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. On 22­10­2018 at 01­00 PM, he served notice to the accused U/s.41­A Cr.P.C., and released him on station bail. Later L.W.14­SI of

Police took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by L.W.13 and found it on correct lines. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/s.304­A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences

U/s. 304­A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, the accused pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed to be tried. 

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P10 are marked. On behalf of the prosecution and none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.304­A IPC and Sec.134

(a) & (b), r/w 187 of M.V.Act, beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?

9.POINT:­

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must prove the death of deceased Venkateswara Rao and it was caused on account of the rash or negligence of the accused. To prove the said points, the prosecution examined the wife of deceased as P.W.1, eye witnesses to the occurrence as P.Ws.2 and 3,

Mediator for Inquest proceedings as P.W.4, Mediator for Scene observation proceedings as P.W.5, MVI as P.W.6 and the police officer who participated in investigation as P.W.7. The prosecution got marked the report of P.W.1 as Ex.P1,

Inquest report as Ex.P2, Scene observation report as Ex.P3, MVI report as Ex.P4,

Original FIR is Ex.P5, the rough sketch as Ex.P6, Report of accused as Ex.P7, PME

Certificate as Ex.P8 and District Court proceedings as Ex.P9.

1. “Whether the Prosecution is able to prove that deceased Vemuri

Venkateswara Rao had died in the accident occurred on 21.10.2018 

opposite to Usha Rama College in Telaprolu?

10.The evidence of P.W.1 discloses that on 21.10.2018 at about 9.30PM she came to know that her husband met with an accident at Telaprolu and sustained injuries. She further testified that having come to know about the accident, she rushed to the scene and noticed his husband died in the spot, later she lodged Ex.P1 report. She further testified that she noticed the driver of crime vehicle in scene and identified accused as the driver of crime vehicle. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in regard to the death of

Venkateswara Rao in the accident occurred on 21.10.2018.

11.The evidence of P.W.5 categorically discloses that police observed the scene situated in front of Usha Rama College at Telaprolu center in his presence and drafted Ex.P3 Scene observation report. The evidence of P.W.4 discloses that inquest was held over the dead body of Vemuri Venkateswara Rao on 21.10.2018 at about 1.00 PM at GGH, Gannavaram and Ex.P2 inquest report was prepared in the presence of panchayatdars at the time of inquest. The learned defence counsel argued that P.Ws.4 and 5 are stock mediators and thus the evidence P.Ws.4 and 5 cannot be considered to prove the scene observation and inquest proceedings. The learned defence counsel though cross examined P.Ws.4 and 5 nothing was elicited to disprove the presence of P.W.4 at the time of scene observation and presence of

P.W.5 at the time of inquest. Except putting some suggestions, nothing was elicited from P.Ws.4 and 5 and thus the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 remains unshaken. 

12.The evidence of P.W.7 discloses that on 21.10.2018, P.W.1 presented

Ex.P1 report and he registered Ex.P1 report as Cr.No.39/2018 under Ex.P5. The evidence further discloses that he visited the scene of offence, observed it and prepared Ex.P3 report and rough sketch under Ex.P6. I have gone through Ex.P1,

P3 and P6, which reveal that Venkateswara Rao met with an accident on 21.10.2018 opposite to Usha Rama College in Telaprolu and consequently, he died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Further Ex.P5 shows the incident was reported to police forthwith. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 together with Ex.P1,

P3, P5 and P6 proved Venkateswara Rao met with an accident opposite to Usha

Rama College in Telaprolu. Further Ex.P9 PME certificate strengthens the prosecution story regarding the death of Venkateswara Rao.

13.The learned defence counsel has not cross examined prosecution witnesses on the aspect of death of Venkateswara Rao. Therefore, the evidence of prosecution witnesses coupled with Ex.P1 to P9 established Venkateswara Rao met with an accident opposite to Usha Rama College in Telaprolu, he received injuries and later he was succumbed to injuries. Therefore, the prosecution could able to establish the death of Venkateswara Rao was on account of the accident occurred on 21.10.2018 opposite to Usha Rama College in Telaprolu.

2.“Whether the Prosecution is able prove that the accused is the driver

of the crime vehicle at the time of accident ?.

14.The learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution could not prove the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. On perusal of the record, P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle. The learned defence counsel argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 have no weight even it shows P.Ws.1 to 3 identified the accused before the court. P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted in the cross examination that prior to the incident they do not know the accused. P.Ws.2 and 3 further admitted that the alleged incident occurred while the deceased was crossing the road in the same direction to the crime vehicle.

There is no whisper in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 that the crime vehicle was stopped in the scene of offence and the driver of the crime vehicle was present in the scene of offence for considerable period. Furthermore, P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted that they did not state before police that they observed the crime vehicle at the time of incident. It is pertinent here to look into the evidence of P.W.7 who investigated the matter. P.W.7 admitted in cross examination that P.Ws.1 to 3 did not state that they identified the driver of the crime vehicle and accused was present in the scene of offence till the arrival of P.W.1 to the scene. Therefore, it shows P.Ws.1 to 3 improved their version and the said improvement in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 was put to P.W.7 and he admitted the same as developments. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 to the extent they observed the driver of the crime vehicle in the scene of offence is a material omission and development. Therefore, the admission of P.Ws.1 to 3 in their cross examination discarded their evidence in respect of identification of accused. It is not in dispute that no identification parade has been conducted. Furthermore, no scrap of paper has been brought on record to prove the identity of the accused. Further, accused denied the alleged surrender before police. Where P.Ws.1 to 3 have no prior acquaintance with the accused and where there has been no prior test identification parade and Ex.P1 does not disclose the name of the accused, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 lacks value in proving the identification of the accused. Therefore, I hold that there is no sufficient material evidence to prove the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle.

3. “ Whether the Prosecution is able prove that the rash or negligence

of the accused is the proximate cause to the death of Venkateswara

Rao ?"

15.The learned defence counsel argued that none of the prosecution witnesses have witnessed occurrence and in the said circumstances, their evidence is not helpful to prove the rash or negligence and there is no other evidence on record to prove the rash or negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. It is true the evidence on record shows P.Ws.4 to 7 are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence.

The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as to the identity of accused is not believable. The learned prosecutor placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.6 MV Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. The evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P4 is unshaken to the cross examination. It is true the evidence of P.W.6 together with

Ex.P4 accident report shows the mechanical defect of the crime vehicle is not the reason for the accident. Of course, the mere absence of mechanical defect does not prove the rash or negligence of the driver.

16.In cross examination, P.W.7 deposed that there no provision to cross the road at the scene of offence. It is the contention of the defence of the accused that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased Venkateswara

Rao. According to the version of prosecution, the incident occurred when motor cycle of deceased Venkateswara Rao was crossing the High Way in the same direction of crime vehicle. In the said circumstance, when there is cogent evidence to prove the occurrence, the prosecution must prove the rash or negligence of the accused is highly probable in the occurrence. In those circumstances the clear picture of scene of offence gains much importance. But Exs.P3 and P7 do not speak the entire picture of scene of offence and the same does not help the prosecution to prove the probabilities for the accident. Moreover, there are no photos to the spot.

In the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.6 alone is not sufficient to prove the rash or negligence. The prosecution must adduce sufficient independent evidence to show that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. In the absence of the said evidence, it is not safe to conclude the rash or negligence is the proximate cause to the death of Venkateswara Rao.

 17.In the light of the above discussion, the court holds that evidence on record though established that the death of Venkateswara Rao is on account of road accident but there is no ample evidence on record to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he caused the death of Venkateswara Rao.

Therefore, the prosecution could not prove the ingredients of offence punishable

U/s 304­A viz., rash or negligence as well as the identification of the accused. In the absence of the said evidence, there is no hesitation to hold that the prosecution could not adduce the sufficient evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused and consequently, he is entitled to be acquitted.

18.Where the prosecution could not prove the identity of the accused as well as the material ingredients of Sec.304­A IPC, the question of conviction of accused for non­compliance of mandate of Sec.134 M.V.Act does not arise and consequently, the court holds that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence punishable U/s 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

19. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under s.304­A IPC & 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and he is acquitted for the said offence U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 25th day of September, 2019. 

Sd/­ Smt. D. Sharmila

XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : V. Kumari­None­ PW­2 : J. Adinarayana PW­3 : J. Srinivasa Rao PW­4 : Kolli Venkateswara Rao PW­5 : G. Vijay Kumar PW­6 : J. Narayana Swamy, MVI. PW­7 : J. Venkata Ramana, SI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Report of PW1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: Inquest report. Ex.P3: Scene observation Report. Ex.P4: MVI Report. Ex.P5: Original FIR. Ex.P6: Rough sketch. Ex.P7: Report of accused. Ex.P8: P.M.Certificate. Ex.P9: District Court proceedings.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

­­Nil­­

Sd/­ Smt. D. Sharmila

XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

//TRUE COPY//

XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of ReportorApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsionofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 21­10­1821­10­1822­10­1822­10­1802­08­1923­09­1925­09­19

Name of theXII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

CalendarC.C.No.173/2019. Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police, Atkuru Police Station, inantVijayawada City. (Cr.No.39/2018 of Atkuru P.S.)

ParticularsKukkala Durga Prasad, S/o Posiyya, aged about 26 years, R/o D.No. ofthe9­351, Vemagiri Village, Jakkampudi Nagar, Kadiyam Mandal, accusedE.G.District, Driver of Raja Travels Bus bearing No.AP­02­W­3789.

OffenceUnder Section 304­A of IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b), r/w 187 of M.V.Act.

FindingNot Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under s.304­A IPC & 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act and he is acquitted for the said offence U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.

Sd/­ Smt. D. Sharmila

XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

//TRUE COPY//

XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

GANNAVARAM

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :

PRESENT:-SMT. D. SHARMILA.

GANNAVARAM.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE,

MONDAY, THIS THE 23M DAY OF MARCH, 2020.

O.S, No, 59 OF 2016

Between:

1) Shaik Sabirunnisa (Died)

2) Shaik Chan Basha, S/o Late Nadur Basha. Mus

aged about 40 years, Resident of Muslimnpet.

Gannavaram, Krishna District.

.Plaintiffs. (Plaintiff No.2 added as LR of 1st plaintiff as per ordeIS

I.A.No.400/2018, dated 29042019.)

AND

1) Kagga Gangaiah, S/o Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged about

40 years, Resident of Near Paladugu Nani House, Konay

Cheruvu, Gannavaram Mandal. Krishna District.

2) Sri Kampa Prasad, S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, aged

...Defendants.

about 32 years, Resident of S.T.Colony, Near Konay

CheruVu, Gannavaram Mandal, Krishna District. This suit is coming on 16-03-2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri T.Venkaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri

KV. Ramana, Advocate for the 1% Defendant and the 2nd defendant remained

exparte and upon hearing the arguments and gone through the evidence on

record and having stood over for consicderation till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

JUD G MENT

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants l and 2

1.

for permanent injunction restang the deiendants, their men, henchmen,

agents, servants, representatuves, etc., from ever interfering with the plaintiff's

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for

costs of the suit.

The brief averments in the Plaint are as follows: - 2.

2

la) The deceased lst plaintiff was the absolute oWner

Whilem property in an extent of 2 1/2 cents in Plot No.583 situated in of he

Kesarapalli

Gannavaram Mandal, having s o

Panchayat, Venkata Narasimhapuram Colony, same from the Government of A.P., on 25-07-2002 by way of Patta got the No.36623 and since then the deceased 1st Plaintiff was in peaceful, continuous

and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property

with absolute and lawful rights. Subsequently on 08-12-2005, the plaintiff

borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the deferndant No.1, agreeing to repay

the same with interest at 24% p.a., and the 1 defendant insisted the plaintiff to keep the original Patta dated 25-07-2002 with him, and since then the plaintiff paid the interest every month to the 1" defendant.

The deceased l4

plaintiff discharged the entire amount due to the 1" defendant with agreed rate of interest and she demanded the 1" delendant to return the original patta kent with him. The defendant obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on blank

N.J.stamp worth Rs.100/- and also on two blank white papers, then the 1 defendant represented that it was kept in an iron safe by assuring that he will return the same later. Reposing confidence in the 1 defendant, the plaintiff did not press for the same.

(b) Subsequently the 1" defendant in collusion with the 2nd

defendant, taking advantage of possession of the original patta, are trying to

interfere with the plaintiff's possession and eniovment over the plaint schedule property illegally and high handedly by making false claims and also by

fabricating false documents. Then the nlainif auestioned both the defendants

about their illegal and highhanded

acts and then they gave evasive and adamant replies and said that they are the Owners of the said property. Due to intervention of elders of locality, their llegal act was resisted. Subsequently on 25-06-016, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants and on

28-06-2016 the said notices were returned unserved with false endorsements.

of the

While matter stood thus on 07-08-2016

3 came along with both the defendants

some rowdy elements to the plaint schedule property and tried to dispossess

the deceased 1 plaintiff from the plaint schedule property illegally and

highhandedly and they proclaimed that they will not allow the deceased 1t

plaintiff to continue in

possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any time by hook or crook. Hence, the plaintiff is obliged to file the

present suit.

3 Having received suit Summons, the 1st Defendant appearea

through the Counsel and filed written statement, but the 2d detendant

remained exparte.

The brief averments in the Written Statement of 1st Defendant are as follows:

(a) The 1st Defendant denied the material avermnents of the Plaint.

In fact the plaintiff sold away her schedule property to this defendant on 08 12-2005 and executed a possessory sale agreement in favour of this defendant and received sale consideration from 1 Defendant on the same day and delivered the possession of the schedule property to this defendant. At the time of sale, the plaintiff handed over the original Patta to this defendant with regard to the above sale transaction. Since then this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment over the same till he sold away the same to the

gnd defendant. This defendant sold away the schedule property to the

gnd defendant on 18-02-2010 and received the sale consideration from the 2nd defendant and executed a possessory sale agreement in favour of hi and delivered the possession of schedule property to the 2nd defendant

h) This defendant never avoid to receive the notice got issued by the plaintiff on 25-06-2016 and got returned with false endorsement l ft s defendant. There iS no cause of action for no notice was offered to serve to filing of the suit and the alleged cause of action is created only for the purpose of filing of this suit, as such the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

Basing on the above pleadings. the following issues were framed

4.

for trial?

1) Whether the suit schedule property is in peaceful legal possession

and enjoyment of plaintiff?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction

prayed for?

as

3) To what relief?

5 During the course of trial, as uie lst plaintiff died, her Ledal

Representative

was brought on record as plaintiff No.2

LA.No.400/2018, dated 29042019. The 2 Plaintiff himself examined as PW 1 vide

Orders in

and one Veera Sobhanadri who is third party to the suit proceedings, examined

as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.Al to A3. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant himself examined as D.W.l and no document was exhibited on his

behalf. The 2nd defendant remained exparte.

6 I have heard arguments of both sides. Perused the record including the entire evidence on record.

ISSUE No. 1 and 2:

7 The lssues 1 and 2 are inter-related, so they are taken up together for consideration. The deceased lst Plaintiff contends that on 25-07-2002 he suit schedule property was allotted to her hy the Government, by way of Patta

No.36623 and she is in possession and eniovment of the schedule house slte as absolute owner and on 08-12-2005. she borrowed an amount of Rs.25,000/- from lst defendant, by putting the original Patta No.36623 dated 25-07-2002 with him, towards security loter she discharged the debt due to the 1 defendant with agreed rate of interest and she demanded the 1 defendant to return the original patta kent with him, but he did not return the same. The lst plaintiff further contended that the lst defendant with the help of 2nd

trying to

defendant

denied the

occupy

verslon

the plaint schedule property. The lst

plaintiff sold the

schedule property to

of the

Plaintifd and he contended that the lst

of sale and then he had been in

him by executing possessory agreement

sold away the same to the 2nd possession

and enjoyment over the same till he

possessory sale

defendant

agreement in favour

schedule property to the 2nd defendant. on 18-02-2010 and executed a

of him and delivered the possession of 8. During the course of trial, as the lst plaintiff died, her Legal

Representative

was brought

LA.No.400/2018, dated 29042019. In order to substantiate version of plaintiffi.

on record as plaintiff No,2 vide Orders in the legal heir of deceased plaintiff i.e., 2nd plaintiff is examined as P.W.1. By way of his affidavit which is admitted as his chief-examination reiterated his version and got marked the legal notice issued by his mother i.e., deceased lst

plaintiff to both the defendants as Ex.Al and returned postal covers from the

defendants as Exs.A2 and

A3. Further P.W.2 was examined on behalf of plaintiff to support the version of P.W. 1, stating that the 1lst defendant with the

help of 2nd defendant trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property.

9. On the other hand, as the 2nd defendant was set ex parte, the

evidence adduced by P.w.l remained unchallenged. Whereas the lst defendant

was examined as D.W.l and the version of the D.W.1 is that on 08-12-2005 the lst plaintiff sold away her schedule property and executed a possessory sale agreement in favour of him and sne received sale consideration from him on the same dav and delivered the possesSion of the schedule property to him At the time of sale, the plaintiff handed over the original Patta to him with resard to the above sale transaction. SinCe then he had been in possession and enjoyment over the same till he sold away the same to the 2nd defendant. He sold away the schedule property to the 2" delendant on 18-02-2010 and 6 received the sale consideration fom the 2nd defendant

and executed a

of him and delivered the possession of

possesSory sale agreement in favour

handed over the original patta of

schedule property to the 2nd defendant. He schedule property which was handed Over to him by the plaintiff.

On the stand taken by either sides, in their pleadings and also 10. according to their evidence, this cort could find that there are few facts which are not in dispute are that, the P.W.l is the son of deceased 1st plaintif and

that Plot No.583 situated in Kesarapaln reulciayat, Venkata Narasimhan1uram

was allotted to the

Colony, Gannavaram Mandal 1 plaintiff by the

Government on 25-07-2002 by way of Patla NO.S6623. Thus it is not in dispute

that Plot No.583, was allotted to the deceased lst plaintiff., as the schedule

property being the property of Government allotted to the deceased lst plaintiff, needless to say it is in alienable, but heritable because of which P.W. 1 undisputedly being the legal heir of deceased lst plaintiff succeeded to plot No. 583.

11. The 2nd defendant remained exparte. In order to prove his version, the lst defendant is examined as D.W.1. In his affidavit which is admitted as his chief examination, he deposed on the lines of his version. However, the lst

defendant/D.W.1 has set up his own title to the property i.e., Plot No.583 by

Saying that deceased lst plaintiff executed an agreement of sale dated

08.12.2005, in his favour, and since then he is in possession of plot No.J83,

but the written statement is silent, about the amount of sale consideration and

whether the said Agreement of sale got redistered so as to claim that from the

date of the so called agreement of sale The D w 1 having claimed title to the

schedule property under the so called aGreament of sale dated 08-12-2005, had

not produced the document. So, the very basis for claim of possession and

right by the defendant over the schedule property has not seen the light of the

day.

uted

Since D.W.l has Contended that he did not lend any amount to Is!

of 7 12.

plaintiff by putting Patta pertaining

f to the Plaint schedule property as securly and 1st plaintilif executed an agreement of sale in his favour in respect of plalnt

Schedule property and he

ever received any notice from the plalntiff prior to

filing of the present case.

As could be seen from the address shown In the affidavit filed along with written statement and evidence of D, W. 1, there is no variation in the address of D.W,1 shown in the Ex.A1 legal notice and Ex.P2 postal return cover with and endorsement of "refusal to receive". Thus it is clear that the notice was sent to the correct address. When once it is found in evidence that the notice has been sent to the correct address, 1t must presunmed to have been served to the defendants under Sec. 27 of the General

Clauses Act. It is an admitted fact that the lst defendant did not issue any reply notice to thelst plaintiff, If at all D.W.l did not lent any amount to lst

plaintiff by keeping Patta of lst plaintiff as security and he got the schedule

property under agreement of sale executed by lst plaintiff in his favour, D.W.1 ought to have issued a reply notice to deny the contention of lst plaintiff under

Ex.Al Notice. Admittedly, D.W.1 did not issue any reply notice denying the money transaction between himself and lst plaintiff. Not only that, D.W.1 did

not made any efforts to show that the lst plaintiff executed Agreement of sale

in his favour in respect of schedule property. Therefore, except the oral

assertions of D.W.1, there is neither oral nor documentary evidence to support

or to at least probabilise his contention. Seen irom any angle, the contention put forward by D.W.1 does not appear to be convincing and trustworthy. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the deceased lst

plaintiff executed possessory agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule

property in favour of D.W.1.

13. Adverting to the above, this Court opines that, even if for sake of arguments, it is believed that there exists such an agreement between deceased 8 lst plaintiff and D.W. 1, unless agreement of sale emanates into regstered sale

deed, agreement holder cannot clatm absolute right and title over the property.

in respect of which an agreement was entered into. So, even on that score, it has to be held that, the title of plot No.583 was not conveyed to D.W.1 from the deceased 1st plaintiff basing on the alleged agreement of sale. In deed D.W.1 is silent as to why he has not taken any steps to obtain registered sale deed from deceased lst plaintiff from 08-12-2005 till her death

Further., as the schedule Propoy S assigned by the Goverment 14. who is the actual owner of the property. assigned lands by its nature are only can inheritable but not alienable. ln wimcn event, even if for the sake of

arguments, it is believed that the deceased lst plaintiff i.e., Mother of P.W.I

executed an agreement of sale in favour o6 D.W.1, such agreement is hit by

Sec.3 of the Act 1977, as the property is inalienable. So, from the discussions made above the only conclusion that flows is that, Mother of P.W. 1 who was assigned plot No.583 vide Patta No.36623 by the Government, and on her death it is inherited by the P.W.1, as her legal heir. So, by virtue of

assignment of plot in the name of original assignee i.e., lst plainti. on her

death the property is inherited by the P.W.1, who is the only rightful owner ot

plot No.538. Thus either D.W. 1 nor 2nd defendant has no right or legal

possession over the plaint schedule property. Accordingly. this issue is

Therefore the plaintiff is entitled for

answered in favour of the plaintiff.

permanent injunction as prayed for.

ISSUE No.3:

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiffs 15.

and against the defendants granting permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, their men. henchmen, agents. servants, representatives, ete rom

ever interiering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property.

1ypea tO my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected ana

nounced by me, on this the 23rd day of March, 2020.

PRINCIPAL JUCIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESsSES EXAMINED:

or Plaintiff:

Sk. Chan Basha, 2nd Plaintiff.

PWl: 11-11-2019

Veera Sobhanadri,

PW2: 17-12-2019

For Defendants:

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

--Nil-

Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to

For Plaintiff:

Ex.Al : 25-06-1916

the defendants l & 2,

Returned cover from 1 defendant.

28-06-1916 Returned Cover from 2nd defendant.

Ex.A2 :

28-06-2016

Ex.A3:

For Defendants: PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

GANNAVARAM.

-Nil

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

THURSDAY THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

C.C. No.66/2020

Between:

The State: Rep by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Gannavaram Police Station, 

Vijayawada City... Complainant.

And:

Arja Prabhakar, S/o Venu, Hindu, aged about 33 years, R/o D.No.7­3, Near Panchayat Office, Vanukuru Village, 

Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District... Accused.

This case is coming on 17­06­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri T.Venkata Rao, Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, Gannavaram Police

Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.380 or 411 IPC, in Cr. No.401/2019 of Central Crime Station, Gannavaram

Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a)On 03­11­2019 at about 09­00 PM, L.W.1­Shaik Silar kept cash bag with cash of Rs.16,00,000/­ in rear seat of his Car bearing No.AP­16­EF­7525 and later when he arrived Kesarapalli, he found his bag containing cash of

Rs.16,00,000/­, Passbooks of State Bank, Indian Bank, Andhra Bank, Driving

License, LIC bond, documents on the name of Satish Reddy, Cheque signed by

Satish Reddy, Cell phones, were committed theft by some unknown offenders by break open the glass doors of his Car and decamped with booty.

(b)On 04­11­2019 at 00­30 hours, L.W.1 preferred a report and L.W.10­SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No.401/2019 U/s.379 IPC and investigated into.

He during the course of investigation, examined and recorded statements of witnesses and drafted an observation report in the presence of mediators. On 21­01­2020 at about 01­00 PM, L.W.12 ­ Inspector of Police arrested the accused in

Cr.No.170/2019 of Kankipadu P.S., U/s.392 IPC and recovered Rs.13,50,000/­ and deposit receipt for Rs.2,00,000/­ concerned in Cr.No.401/2019 of Gannavaram

PS and vehicles in other crimes of different police stations in the presence of mediators under cover of mahazar. Later, he was remanded to judicial custody on execution of P.T.Warrant. After completion of investigation, L.W.12 ­ Inspector of

Police, Central Crime Station, Vijayawada city, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/s.379 or 411

IPC against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. The charge for the offence punishable

U/s.411 IPC was framed against accused. The contents of charge were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1 is marked. On behalf of the accused, none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/Sec.411 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt

or not”?

9.POINT:­

The learned A.P.P has contended that on 03.11.2019 at about 9.00 PM

Shaik Silar (L.W.1) started from his office to go to Vijayawada in his Honda Car bearing No.AP 16 EF 7525. He kept a cash of Rs.13,50,000/­, bank pass books,

LIC receipts and bonds, passport, driving license and cheque book along with some property documents of himself and one Satish Reddy kept in a leather bag and he placed the said bag in his car. Meanwhile he went to his Raofin venture at

Allapuram Village by parking the car outside of the venture and later he returned to his car and observed that leather bag containing cash and passbooks were missing from his car by unknown offenders and on filing of report, L.W.10/SI of Police registered the same as a in Cr.No.401/2019 U/s.379 IPC. During the course of investigation, on 21­01­2020 at 1­00 AM, 21­01­2020 at about 01­00 PM, L.W.12 ­

Inspector of Police, CCS, Vijayawada along with staff and mediators proceeded near

Jaihind Complex, Raja Gopalachari street, Governerpet, Vijayawada and arrested the accused and on interrogation the accused confessed that the above offence committed by him, and seized cash of Rs.13,50,000/­ and deposit receipt for

Rs.2,00,000/­ from the possession of the accused, under the cover of mediators report, and as such the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence Under

Section 411 IPC.

12.To prove its case the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is the mediator for arrest and seizure proceedings, P.W.3 in the investigating officer who registered the case and P.W.4 is the investigating officer, who arrested the accused and recovered M.O.1 motor cycle. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W.1, Ex.P2 is CC of

Mediators report, dt.21­01­2020 at 1.00 PM , Ex.P3 is CC of Mediators report, dt.08­04­2019 at 4.00PM, Ex.P4 is Postal Pass Book, Ex.P5 is original FIR, Ex.P6 is

Rough sketch and M.O.1 is cash of Rs.13,50,000/­.

10.The learned prosecutor counsel argued that there is ample reliable evidence on record to prove the charge against accused and further the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3 is consistent and corroborates each other. She further argued that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 gets supports from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 and there is nothing on record to discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

11.“Per Contra” the learned counsel for the accused has contended that the accused was falsely implicated in the case and the entire proceedings drafted in the police station, hence prayed this Court to acquit the accused person. 

12.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 411 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that the accused was in possession of stolen property; the accused has knowledge that he is not the owner of the property and someone was owner of the property and nothing that it is a stolen property retained by him, i.e., the prosecution has to establish that the accused person received the stolen property knowingly or having reason to believe that the same is stolen property. The evidence of P.W.1 is showing that on 03.11.2020 at about 6.00 PM, he kept cash of Rs.13,50,000/­, pass books, LIC receipts in his Honda car bearing No. AP 16 EF 7525 and started from his office to go to Vijayawada, meanwhile he stopped his car at his Raofin ventures, in Allapuram village and went into his venture, later he came out and noticed some unknown person committed theft of his cash bag containing M.O.1­cash from his car, then he searched for his bag but invain and then he gave Ex.P1 report to police at 12.00AM midnight. P.W.3 who is the Investigating officer deposed that basing on Ex.P1, he registered this case in Cr.No.401/2019 U/sec.379 of IPC and issued Ex.P5 First Information

Report and L.W.11­Inspector of Police, CCS, Vijayawada visited the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P6 rough sketch. Ex.P6 discloses that the scene of offence is near

Raofin Ventures in Allapuram village. Ex.P5 is dated 04.11.2019 early hours and the incident occurred on 03.11.2019. Therefore, it shows after the occurrence,

P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 report to police and registered Ex.P5. Therefore, the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with Ex.P1, P5 and P6 proved the fact of the theft of M.O.1 near Raofin ventures in Allapuram village.

13. Now it is to be seen whether, the M.O.1 is recovered from the accused or not. In this regard the evidence of mediator P.W.2 is very crucial. P.W.2 categorically deposed that police arrested the accused opposite to Jaihind Complex,

Rajagopala chari veedhi, Vijayawada and accused confessed the offence under

Ex.P2 report and in pursuance of the confession of accused, P.W.4 seized M.O.1 and Ex.P4­Postal Passbook from the accused under cover of Ex.P3 report. P.W.2 identified the accused as the person from whom P.W.4 seized M.O.1 and Ex.P4. The leaned defence counsel argued that P.W.2 could not speak the entire contents of

Exs.P2 and P3 and the evidence of P.W.2 could not be based to prove the charge against accused. It is true P.W.2 deposed that he cannot say entire contents of

Exs.P2 and P3 reports. On perusal of Exs.P2 and P3 reports, they contain two pages each and they run into several aspects. It is not possible for a human being to remember the entire contents of the reports which were prepared 3 to 4 months ago. Further the evidence of P.W.2 is unshaken on material aspects in cross examination. P.W.2 categorically deposed the identity of the accused and seizure of

M.O.1 and Ex.P4 from accused and the evidence of P.W.2 gets corroboration from

Exs.P2 and P3. Further the evidence of P.W.2 gets support from the evidence

P.W.4, who categorically testified that he arrested the accused in the presence of

P.W.2 and L.W.4­Pilla Sudhakar and seized the M.O.1 and Ex.P4 from the possession of accused in the pursuance of confession of accused. The evidence of

P.Ws.2 and 4 proved the seizure of M.O.1, Ex.P4­Pass book and their evidence is corroborated each other and further stood to cross examination. P.Ws.2 and 4 denied that suggestion Exs.P2 and P3 were prepared at Police Station for statistical purpose and accused has no connection with the stolen property.

14.The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 proved the seizure of M.O.1 ­ cash from the accused but accused could not account for M.O.1. There is no explanation from accused how he came into possession of M.O.1. When the prosecution proved the seizure of M.O.1 from the accused, the burden shifts to accused and he must explain the grounds under which he came into the possession of the stolen property. But accused could not discharge the burden lies on him. Further he has spoken nothing during the examination of 313 Cr.P.C. Therefore the conduct of accused as well as the evidence on record proved the seizure of M.O.1 from the accused. Accused did not place or elicit any material to show that the said property is not stolen property and that he does not know that M.O.1 is stolen property, in the absence of the same and with proved facts and basing on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 and basing on material documents under Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1, it is clear that the accused is in possession of the M.O.1 stolen property. Hence, evidence led in by the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused received and retained stolen property dishonestly knowingly well that said property is stolen property. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused received and possessed M.O.1 stolen property knowing and having reason to believe that it is stolen property.

15. Therefore, in the circumstances, as per the reasons stated above, this court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused person for the offence

U/sec.411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly he is liable for conviction for the offence punishable U/sec.411 IPC. Accordingly point is answered.

16.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable

U/sec.411 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me through Video Conference, this the 18th day of June, 2020.

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

17.While questing the accused regarding the quantum of sentence, he submitted that he has old age parents, who depend on him. He further submitted that he is only bread winner of his family. Hence prayed to take lenient view.

 18.In view of the nature of offence this court fells that the accused is not entitled for the benefit of provisions of Sec.3 and 4 of P.O.Act. However this court has taken lenient view with regarding the sentence. Taking into consideration of the above mitigating facts and circumstances of this case, this court feels that sentencing the accused as under would meets the end of justice.

19.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.411 IPC and he is convicted for the same U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to imprisonment for 5 Months (Five Months Only). The remand period of accused which has already under gone from 03.02.2020 to 18.06.2020 shall be set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. M.O.1 – Cash of Rs.13,50,000/­ was already given to

P.W.1 for interim custody vide Crl.M.P.No.702/2020, dated. 12.03.2020 shall hold good after expiry of appeal time.

20.The accused was informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the

Calendar and Judgment and he can get free legal aid through Mandal Legal Service

Authority, Gannavaram. Office is directed to give a copy of Judgment and Calendar to the accused forthwith at free of cost.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me through Video conference, this the 18th day of June, 2020.

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : Shaik Silar. ­None­ PW­2 : B. Satyanarayana. PW­3 : V.Srinivasa Rao, SI of police. PW­4 : S.V.V.S.Murthy, CI of police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: Attested copy of confession statement of accused dt.21­01­2020 at 1­00 PM. Ex.P3: Attested copy of seizure report of stolen property accused dt.21­01­2020 at 4­00 PM. Ex.P4: Pass book in the name of accused for Rs.2,00,000/­. Ex.P5: FIR. Ex.P6: Rough Sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1 – Cash of Rs.13,50,000/­. Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

//TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA. CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, 

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of Report orApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsion ofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 03/11/1904/11/1921/01/20­­06/03/2016/06/2018/06/20

Name of the XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

Calendar C.C.No.66/2020. Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Station, inantGannavaram Crime Police Station, Vijayawada City. (Cr.No.401/2019 of Gannavaram P.S.) Particulars Arja Prabhakar, S/o Venu, Hindu, aged about 33 years, D.No.7­3, of the Near Panchayat Office, Vanukuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, accused Krishna District. OffenceUnder Section 411 IPC.

FindingFound Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.411 IPC and he is convicted for the same U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C. and he is sentenced to imprisonment for 5 Months (Five Months Only). The remand period of accused which has already under gone from 03.02.2020 to 18.06.2020 shall be set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C. M.O.1 – Cash of Rs.13,50,000/­ was already given to P.W.1 for interim custody vide Crl.M.P.No.702/2020, dated. 12.03.2020 shall hold good after expiry of appeal time. Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

//TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ::

GANNAVARAM.

PRESENT: SMT.D.SHARMILA.

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

FAC/XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GANNAVARAM,

THURSDAY THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

C.C. No.08/2019

Between:

The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police,

Gannavaram Police Station, Vijayawada City. .. Complainant.

And:

Majeti Pavan Kumar, S/o Hari Venkata Nagabhushanam, Hindu, Aged about 21 years, R/o Bhanu Nagar, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada, Driver of a Car

bearing No.AP­16­DR­3865. .. Accused. 

This case is coming on 17­06­2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Gr­II, for Complainant­State and of Sri K.V.Ramana and Kum.L.Bhagiradhi, Advocates for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and upon hearing arguments on both sides this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A IPC, in

Cr. No.347/2017 of Gannavaram Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the allegations against the accused as mentioned in charge sheet are as follows:.

(a)The complainant/L.W.1 –Ponnamala Sunitha is residing in Kesarapalli village and she is the wife of 1st deceased Ponnamala Nani Babu. On 12­11­2017, while deceased 1 and 2 are returning from Vijayawada on their scooty bearing

No.AP­16­EE­3898 and when they reached near Kesarapalli – Savaragudem cross roads and while crossing the road, the accused being the driver of a car bearing

No.AP­16­DR­3865 proceeding from Eluru to Vijayawada drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of deceased. As a result of which they fell down on the road and later the car dashed one person present in the road margin, sustained injuries and shifted to the hospital for treatment.

Doctors examined and declared that the deceased 1 and 2 were died and while undergoing treatment, 3rd deceased also died. 

(b)On 12­11­2017 at 11­00 PM, L.W.1 preferred a report and L.W.25 SI of

Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.347/2017 U/s 304­A IPC and investigated into. On 13­11­2017 at about 06­00 hours, L.W.27 ­ Inspector of Police during the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, observed the scene

before mediators under cover of mediators report and prepared rough sketch,

examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. He held inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 on 13­11­2017 at 08­00 hours. Simultaneously, L.W.26 ­ SI of Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2 at 08­00 hours and

L.W.25 ­ SI of police held inquest over the dead body of deceased No.3 at 08­00 hours and sent dead bodies of deceased to Medical Officer to know exact cause of death of deceased. On 16­11­2017, L.W. 27 ­ Inspector of Police arrested the accused and released him on station bail. After completion of investigation, L.W.27

Inspector of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A IPC against accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. The accused denied the contents of charge sheet and documents. The accusation against accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304­A IPC, was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the trial, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P3 are marked. On behalf of the prosecution and none were examined and no documents were exhibited on behalf of defence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against him on record and reported no defense evidence 

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable U/s.304­A, beyond all reasonable doubt or

not”?

9.POINT:­

The prosecution examined the informant­cum­wife of D1­Ponnamala

Nani Babu as P.W.1, son of D2­Shaik Rehman as P.W.2, Owner of crime vehicle as

P.W.3, father of D3­Naganti Prabhu Kumar as P.W.4, MVI as P.W.5 and the alleged eye witness to the occurrence as P.W.6. The prosecution got marked the report of

P.W.1 as Ex.P1, section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 as Ex.P2 and MVI report as

Ex.P3.

10.The learned prosecutor argued that there is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused whereas the leaned defence counsel argued that there is no material evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused as none of the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time and the manner of the incident, and thus the accused is entitled for acquittal.

11.To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution shall establish:

1. The death of the deceased D1­Ponnamala Nani Babu, D2­Shaik Rehman and

D3­Naganti Prabhu Kumar in a road accident. 2. Accused is driver of crime vehicle at the time of the accident. 3. The accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and caused the death of Deceased No.1 to 3.

12.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution must initially prove the death of D1­Ponnamala Nani Babu, D2­Shaik Rehman and D3­

Naganti Prabhu Kumar on account of the accident occurred at Savarigudem cross road, Kesarapalli village on 12.11.2017. The evidence of P.W.1 categorically shows that on 12.11.2017 at 10.00 PM while she was present at their house someone informed over phone that his husband/D1­Nani Babu met with a car accident while crossing the Savarigudem road at Kesarapalli village, immediately P.W.1 rushed to the scene and found his husband/ D1­Nani Babu, D2­Shaik Rehman and D3­Naganti Prabhu Kumar with injuries and shifted them to Govt. General

Hospital, Vijayawada. Later she presented Ex.P1 Report in Gannavaram Police

Station. 

13.The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that on 12­11­2017 at about 9.30 PM when he was in market center Gudivada, he received a phone call from Police stating that his father D2­Shaik Rehman met with an accident as a Car hit him while he was proceeding on the motor cycle of D1 as pillion rider, later they shifted to GGH Vijayawada and immediately he rushed to the hospital and noticed that his father was succumbed to injuries. The evidence of P.W.3 reveals that on 12­11­2017 while he was in his house, their relatives informed him that his son

D3­Maganti Prabhu Kumar met with accident as a car hit him and immediately he rushed to the scene, shifted his son to Govt. hospital, later he died on the same day. Hence evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is useful to the extent of death of D1­Nani

Babu, D2­Shaik Rehman and D3­Maganti Prabhu Kumar in an accident.

14.To convict the accused for the alleged offence under section 304­A IPC, the prosecution must establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident and the nexus between the accused and alleged occurrence. It is an admitted fact that P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, there remains the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 to prove the identity of the accused. Prosecution examined owner of crime vehicle as P.W.3, who deposed that at about 2 years back on one day, when he was not present in his house police called his son to police station as his son travelled in his car, but he does not know whereabouts of his car at the time of alleged accident as he was in

Australia. His evidence discloses that he did not know about the case facts and police never examined him. There is no whisper in his evidence with regard to the alleged occurrence. The learned prosecutor though cross examined him nothing could be extracted to prove the occurrence and driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. P.W.3 categorically denied that he has stated in his statement marked as in Ex.P2. Therefore, P.W.3 is declared hostile to the prosecution. 

15.As stated above P.W.6 is the eye witness to the occurrence. He deposed that on 12.11.2017, when he was going to the house of D1 and reached the turning in Kesarapalli village, he noticed a Eeta car came with high speed and hit the motor cycle of D1, while D1 was crossing the road and then the crime vehicle also hit a person waiting at the scene for city bus. Later injured were shifted to hospital.

P.W.6 identified accused as the driver of crime vehicle. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.6 that he has got acquaintance with the accused. Further prosecution failed to examine the investigating officer to ascertain whether the police has conducted the test identification parade to ascertain the identity of accused. According to the evidence of P.W.6, accused drove the vehicle at high speed. In cross examination P.W.6 categorically admitted that he reached the scene of offence in 5 to 10 minutes immediately after the accident, but he did not personally witness how the accident occurred. So from the said evidence of P.W.6 it is clear that he did not directly witness the alleged incident and by the time he went to the scene, the entire incident was over. There is no whisper in the evidence of P.W.6 that the crime vehicle was stopped in the scene of offence and the driver of the crime vehicle was present in the scene of offence for considerable period.

Furthermore, P.W.6 admitted that he did not state before police that he observed the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Therefore, the admission of P.W.6 in his cross examination discarded his evidence in respect of identification of accused.

Thus the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 lacks value in proving the identification of the accused. Therefore, there is no ample and reliable evidence on record to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle.

16.The next point is to be answered is whether the prosecution could able to prove the rash or negligence of the accused is the proximate cause to the death of D1 to D3. The leaned prosecutor argued that rash and negligence on the part of the accused is proximate cause to the death of D1 to D3. The word “rash or negligence” does not relate to the speed of the vehicle but the manner of driving the vehicle. It is an admitted fact that P.Ws.1 to 5 are not direct witnesses to the occurrence. The only eye witness available is P.W.6. The evidence of P.W.6 shows the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased D1 and D2 while crossing the road and then the crime vehicle also hit a person waiting at the scene for city bus. Interestingly P.W.6 admitted that there are no zebra lines in the scene of offence for crossing the road. Hence it creates shadow of doubt regarding the negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle for the occurrence of alleged accident and subsequent death of deceased persons. Hence evidence of P.W.6 is doubtful to prove the negligence on the part of driver of crime vehicle is proximate cause to the death of deceased persons.

17.The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of P.W.5 discloses that prior mechanical defect of the crime vehicle is not the reason for the accident and it shows the rash and negligence of the accused is the sole reason for accident. It is true the evidence of P.W.5 coupled with Ex.P3 categorically shows

P.W.5 inspected the crime vehicle and found damages and brakes are efficient and even condition. P.W.5 gave opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. The mere absence of mechanical defect alone is not sufficient to conclude the mishap had taken place on the rash and negligence of the accused. It is an admitted fact that L.Ws.25 to 27 who investigated the matter were not examined as prosecution witnesses. They are the best person to speak with regard to the material contradictions and material omissions but the prosecution is unable to examine them as the prosecution witness. Moreover, during the course of investigation, police failed to seize the records of crime vehicle in order to ascertain whether the accused was driver of crime vehicle at the time of the accident. 

18.On considering on the material evidence on record, though the incident occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle but there is reliable evidence to prove the incident occurred due to rash or negligence on the part of the rider of the crime vehicle. No presumption can be drawn to prove the rash and negligence. The prosecution must prove the same through cogent evidence. In the said event, it is safe to conclude that there is no material evidence against accused to prove he is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and the accident is due to the negligence on the part of the accused. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/s.304­A IPC and he is acquitted for the said offences U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me through Video conference, this the 18th day of June, 2020. 

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

PW­1 : P. Sunitha.­None­ PW­2 : Shaik Bashavali. PW­3 : Majeti KV Nagabhushanam PW­4 : M.Venkateswara Rao PW­5 : P.V.Ramana Rao PW­6 : S.Chandra Sekhar,

DOCUMENTS MARKED:

For Complainant:­ For accused:­

Ex.P1: Reoport of PW1. ­Nil­ Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P3: MVI Report. MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

­­Nil­­

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

//TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF: KRISHNA.

CALENDAR OF CASES TRIED BY THE XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VIJAYAWADA AT GANNAVARAM.

Date of ReportorApprehen­ReleasedCommence­Close ofSentence or Complainantsionofon bailment of trialtrialOrder Offence accused 12/11/1712/11/1716/11/1716/11/1718/07/1917/03/2018/06/20

Name of theXII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, at Gannavaram. court

CalendarC.C.No.08/2019. Case No.

Compala­The State: Rep by Sub­Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station, inantVijayawada City. (Cr.No.347/2017 of Gannavaram P.S.)

ParticularsMajeti Pavan Kumar, S/o Hari Venkata Nagabhushanam, Hindu, Aged oftheabout 21 years, R/o Bhanu Nagar, Madhura Nagar, Vijayawada, accusedDriver of a Car bearing No.AP­16­DR­3865.

OffenceU/Sec.304­A,

FindingNot Guilty.

SentenceIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/s.304­A IPC and he is acquitted for the said offences U/s.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Explanation for delay:­ Due to non production of witnesses.

Sd/­ Smt.D.Sharmila

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.

Copy submitted to: 

The Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada for favour of information.

//TRUE COPY//

XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

FAC/ XII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

GANNAVARAM.