Sri. SK.Md. Abutalib Parveez., M.Sc, L.L.M, PGDIPR

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

C.C.No. 302 of 2012

Complaint :State: The Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Rural Police Station.

Description of the Accused1.Turaka Pedda Kotaiah, S/o.Chinna Venkata Swamy, 45 years, Vaddera by caste, Pedda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal.

2.Turaka Bala Kotaiah, S/o.Chinna Venkata Swamy, 43 years, Vaddera by caste, Pedda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal.

3.Turaka Chiranjivi, S/o.Pedda Kotaiah, 22 years, Vaddera by caste, Pedda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal Offence: Under Sec.323, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.

Plea of the accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.2551 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

DATES OF

Offence:Prior to 29.04.2012 Complaint:03.06.2012 Apprehension of accused:14.09.2012 Released on bail:14.09.2012 Commencement of trial:27.07.2016 Closure of trial:03.05.2017 Date of judgment:03.05.2017

Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file against the A1 to

A3 Under Sec.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC on 22.09.2012. On 22.04.2013, copies of documents are furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 10.07.2013, 2

A1 to A3 were examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation under Sec.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC was read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

On 27.07.2016, PW1 is chief examined and case is posted for further chief examination of PW1. On 19.10.2016, PW1 chief examined and cross examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked. On 16.12.2016, PW2 and PW3 are examined and Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are marked. On 07.03.2017, PW4 is examined and the evidence of prosecution side was closed and case is posted for Sec.313 Cr.P.C examination. On 13.03.2017, they were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed and case is posted for arguments to 15.03.2017. On 03.05.2017, both sides arguments are heard and on the same day, the Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Md.A. Parveez

Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Copy submitted to:- The Hon'ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True Copy //

A.J.M.F.C, Markapur 3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

MARKAPUR

Present : Sri.Sk.Md.Abutalib Parveez Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

Wednesday, this the third day of May, 2017

Calendar Case No. 302 of 2012

State: The Sub Inspector of Police, Markapur Police Station...Complaina nt

Vs

1.Turaka Pedda Kotaiah, S/o.Chinna Venkata Swamy, 45 years, Vaddera by caste, Pedda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur (M).

2.Turaka Bala Kotaiah, S/o.Chinna Venkata Swamy, 43 years, Vaddera by caste, Pedda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur (M).

3.Turaka Chiranjivi, S/o.Pedda Kotaiah, 22 years, Vaddera

by caste, Pedda Nagulavaram Village, Markapur (M)....Accused

This case is coming today for arguments before me in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri V.Krishna Rao,

Advocate for A1 to A3, upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Markapur Rural Police station filed chargesheet against the A1 to A3 in Cr.No.71/2012 of Markapur Rural Police

Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

PW1 is having house sites in S.No.204/3 to an extent of Ac1.99 cents and 204/6 to an extent of 0.43 cents and they were got registered and the complainant is possessing pattadar pass books, the accused

Turuka Pedda Kotaiah field a suit in the court of Senior Civil Judge's Court,

Markapur vide O.S.No.97/2011 claiming the above sites and he purchased the same from the Complainant. The civil case is pending in the civil court.

At that juncture, the accused entered into the disputed and removed the 4 thorny bushes from the land with the help of Proclainer. On noticing the same PW1, PW2, PW4 obstructed the accused. On that three accused pushed away the complainant and dragged him from the land threatening him with dire consequences. Thereafter, the complainant filed a private complaint in this Court against the accused and it was endorsed to police.

On 3rd day of June, 2012 PW3 received the C.F.R.No.3226, dt.31.05.2012 of the Hon'ble Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur and registered it as case in Cr.No.71/2012 under Sec.323, 506 and 447 r/w 34 I.P.C and Sec.156 (3) Cr.P.C and submitted F.I.R along with the Complainant. During the investigation, PW3 examined and recorded the statement of PW1, PW2,

PW4. Then, he visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW3 deleted Section 447 IPC as the civil case is pending in the Court regarding the ownership of disputed land vide

O.S.No.97/2011. On 14.09.2012, PW3 arrested A1 to A3 at

B.P.Nagulavaram Village at the house of A1 and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of Investigation, PW3 filed chargesheet against

A1 to A3 under Sec.323, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C.

3.On appearance of the A1 to A3, copies of the case documents furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. and they were examined 251 Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation under

U/Sec.323, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C was explained in Telugu for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW4 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents are marked.

5.Heard arguments on both sides.

6.Now the point arise for determination is 5

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the Accused for the offence U/sec.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT: To prove its case, the Prosecution examined PW1 to

PW4 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked.

(a) PW1 in his evidence deposed that he purchased Ac.2.42 cents of agricultural land from Vorsu Venkatamma and Sk.Peda Kasumaiah under different sale deeds. He purchased those lands 20 years ago and since the date of purchase of the above land has been in their possession.

One year prior to filing of this case, A1 gave legal notice to him demanding to register Ac.1.36 cents of land stating that he sold the said land to him.

Then, he gave reply notice to A1 stating that he never sold any piece of land in the above survey number. On 29th day of April, 2012 at 10.00 or 12.00 noon A1 to A3 entered into the agricultural land and making pits and remove the plants with the help of J.C.B. On hearing the above activities of accused in his land, himself along with PW3 and PW4 went to the fields and he found the accused and when questioned about the activities in his land, but the accused did not hear his words and pushed him to the ground and dragged. PW4 intervened and pacified the matter and his shirt was torned in that incident. Then, the accused threatened him with dire consequences stating that he will not leave him and kill him. Then, he returned to the police station and gave report, but the police did not take any action on his report. On that he filed the complaint before this Hon'ble Court. PW1 further deposed that Ex.P1 is the private complaint in CFR 3226/2012,

Ex.P2 is the certified copy of sale deed in S.No.204/3, Ex.P3 is the Adangal,

Ex.P4 is the certified copy of registered sale deed in S.No.204/6, Ex.P5 is

Adangal.

(b) PW2 in his evidence deposed that PW1 is adopted father

PW1 owned and possessed the landed properties in S.No.204/3 and 204/6 of Pedda Nagulavaram village limits and he has been in possession and enjoyment for last 25 years itself. At about 4 years ago A1 issued legal 6 notice to PW1 alleging that those lands are delivered possession in his favour and demanded to execute registered sale deed in his favour. PW1 gave reply notice stating that no such delivery is caused and forged documents do not acted upon them and that A1 filed civil suit against PW1

before the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge's Court Makrapur and the same is

pending. In the year 2012 one day they came to know that A1 clearing japan babool trees with the help of JCB at about 11.00 A.M, immediately himself and PW1 and PW4 rushed to their lands which are situated in

Sy.No.204/3 and 204/6 of pedda Nagulavaram village limits and he witnessed that A1 to A3 trespassed into their lands and clearing japan babool trees with the help of JCB and questioned the accused. Then the

Accused informed them it is their own land and pushed his father PW1 and threatened with dire consequences to them, as in fear they came to the police station and his father PW1 gave report to the Markapur Rural Police

Station.

(c.) PW3 in his evidence deposed that on 3rd day of June 2012 he received the CFR No.3226, dt.31.05.2012 from the Hon'ble Court and registered the same as Cr.No.71/2012 under Sec.323, 506, 447 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.156 (3) of Cr.P.C marked as Ex.P6 F.I.R. On 3rd day of June 2012 he took up investigation and visited the scene of offence situated in

S.No.204/3 and 204/6 in Peddanagurlavaram village and prepared Ex.P7 rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also secured PW1, PW2 and

PW4/B.Pedda Venkata Subbaiah and recorded their statements. On 14.09.2012 at 6.49 A.M, he arrested A1 to A3 at the house of A1 of

Nagulavaram and sent for judicial remand. As civil suit is pending with regard to the scene of offence he filed memo by deleting provision of law

Sec.447 I.P.C. After conclusion of investigation, he laid chargesheet.

(d) PW4 in his evidence deposed that PW1 owned Ac.3.00 of land in Nagulavaram village limits. Four years ago at 11.00 A.M the 7 accused entered into the land of PW1 with JCB and started removing the bushes and plants; PW1 and PW2 came to their field and questioned the accused for entering into their land and removing the plants; at that time he was passing on the way and went to the scene of offence on seeing the incident; after 10 minutes both Accused and PW1, PW2 disbursed from the scene of offence.

8. On perusal of evidence of PW1, who is the Defacto Complainant is that on 29th day of April, 2012 at 10.00 or 12.00 noon, A1 to A3 entered into their agricultural land and making pit and remove the plants with the help of the J.C.B. It is the evidence of PW1 that on hearing the activities of accused in his land himself along with PW2 and PW4 went to their fields.

PW2, who is the adopted son of PW1, his evidence shows that in the year 2012 they came to know that A1 clearing the japan babool trees with the help of JCB at about 11.00 A.M. Immediately, himself and PW1 and PW4 rushed to their lands, which are situated in Sy.No.204/3 and 204/6 of Pedda

Nagulavaram Village and he witnessed that A1 to A3 trespassed into their lands and clearing the japan babools trees with the help of JCB and pushed

PW1 and also threated with dire consequences. It is observed from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who are father and son that the Accused 1 to 3 pushed PW1 and also threatened him. Their evidence clearly shows that A1 to A3 dragged PW1 and threatened him. To support the evidence of PW1,

PW2, the prosecution has also examined PW4, who is alleged to be present at the time of incident. From his evidence, at that time he was passing on the way and went to the scene of offence to see the incident. After 10 minutes both accused and PW1, PW2 disbursed from the scene of offence.

PW1 and PW2 evidence is that after came to know that A1 to A3 are ploughing their lands with JCB, PW1 along with PW2 and PW4 went to the scene of offence. As per the case of Prosecution, PW4 is the direct eye witness for the incident, but his evidence is quite contra to the version of

Prosecution. PW4 admitted that at the time of incident, he was passing on 8 the way and to see the scene of offence he went there and after 10 minutes, all are dispursed from the scene of offence. No where in his entire evidence, PW4 did not speak that A1 to A3 beat PW1 and threatened PW1.

In the entire case of Prosecution witnesses, PW4 is the only independent witness, but he did not speak single word about the offence committed by the Accused. Except, PW4 there are no other prosecution witnesses, to support the case of Prosecution. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for Accused argued that the Investigating Officer/PW3 failed to examine the driver of J.C.B, who is ploughing the land on the instructions of

Accused. On perusal of evidence of all prosecution witnesses, they clearly deposed that at the time they reached the land the accused ploughing the land with the help of J.C.B. So, it clearly reveals that the driver of J.C.B was present at the time of incident. The Investigating Officer neither cited nor examined the driver of the J.C.B. This case registered basing on the Ex.P1 private complainant given by PW1. In Ex.P1 Private Complainant and in his evidence, PW1 failed to depose the name of the driver of J.C.B. PW1 and

PW2 also failed to depose the name of the person, who gave information about the act of accused committing in their field. The Investigating

Officer did not examined nor cited any witnesses near to the scene of offence. The entire evidence of prosecution witnesses creating doubt.

PW1 deposed that at the time of incident his shirt was torned, but

PW3/Investigating Officer failed to seize the torn shirt of PW1. PW3 evidence shows about his investigation in this case, butnot the accusation of Accused 1 to 3. The entire evidence clearly shows that there is no material evidence to prove the guilt of Accused and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

9.From the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

9

10.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences

U/sec.323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.2551 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

Typed my Dictation to the Personal Assistant on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Md.A. Parveez

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur // Appendix of evidence // Witness examined For Prosecution For Defence PW1S. NarasimhuluNONE PW2S.V. Praveen Kumar PW3K. Ramulu Naik PW4B.P.V. Subbaiah Documents marked For Prosecution: Ex.P1Private Complainant in CFR No.3226/2012 Ex.P2Certified copy of registered sale deed in S.No.204/3 Ex.P3Adantal Ex.P4Certified copy of registered sale deed in S.No.204/6 Ex.P5Adangal Ex.P6First Information Report Ex.P7Rough sketch of the scene of offence. For DefenceNIL

Material objects marked NIL

Sd/- Md.A. Parveez

A.J.F.C.M, Markapur. // True Copy //

A.J.M.F.C, Markapur

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

C.C.No. 73 of 2016

Complaint :State: The Sub Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Police Station.

Description of the Accused:Gosula Brahmaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, aged 54years,castebyyadava, VeerayapalemVillage, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

Description of the Deceased1.DongariPapulamma,W/o.late Chennaiah, aged 58 years, Perika caste,KolukulaVillage, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

2.Dudekula Galemma, W/o.Lalu Saheb, aged 69 years, Dudekula caste, Kolukula Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

Offence:Under Sec.337, 304-A IPC & Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act.

Plea of the accused :Not guilty

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty

Sentence or order:In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.337, 304-A IPC and Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

DATES OF

Offence:24.09.2015 Complaint:24.09.2015 Apprehension of accused:30.10.2015 Released on bail:30.10.2015 Commencement of trial:05.01.2017 Closure of trial:01.05.2017 Date of judgment:01.05.2017 2

Explanation for the delay:- This case was taken on file against the Accused

Under Sec.337, 304-A IPC & Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act on 05.02.2016. On 20.05.2016 copies of documents are furnished to him under

Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 30.12.2016, Accused was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation Under Sec.337, 304-A IPC & Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w

Sec.181 of M.V Act is read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 05.01.2017, PW1 to PW10 are examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P12 are marked. On 19.01.2017, PW11 and PW12 are examined and Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are marked. On PW13 is examined and Ex.P15 to Ex.P17 are marked.

On 25.04.2017, PW14 is examined and Ex.P18 to Ex.P20 are marked. On 26.04.2017, PW15 is examined and Ex.P21 to Ex.P29 are marked and the prosecution side evidence was closed. On 28.04.2017, he was examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no evidence. Hence, defence side evidence was closed and case is posted for arguments to 01.05.2017. On 01.05.2017, heard the arguments and on the same day, the Judgment was pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Md.A. Parveez

Addl. Judl Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Copy submitted to:- The Hon'ble I-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

// True Copy //

A.J.M.F.C, Markapur 3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS::

MARKAPUR

Present : Sri.Sk.Md.A.Parveez Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur.

Monday, this the First day of May, 2017

Calendar Case No. 73 of 2016

State: The Sub Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Police Station...Complaina nt

Vs

Gosula Brahmaiah, S/o.Venkaiah, aged 54 years, caste

by yadava, Veerayapalem Village, Yerragondapalem...Accused

Mandal.

1.Dongari Papulamma, W/o.late Chennaiah, aged 58 years, Perika caste, Kolukula Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

2.Dudekula Galemma, W/o.Lalu Saheb, aged 69 years, Dudekula caste, Kolukula Village, Yerragondapalem...Deceased Mandal.

This case is coming today for arguments before me in the presence of Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor and of Sri Y. Anilkumar,

Advocate for Accused, upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Police station filed chargesheet against the Accused in Cr.No.84/2015 of Yerragondapalem under Sec.337, 304-A I.P.C and Sec.192 (1), Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 24th day of September, 2015 at 07.50 A.M D1 and D2 long with PW8 to PW12 went Veerayapalem village for seeding chilly plants ad after completion of their work at 4.00 P.M they boarded the tractor and when the tractor reached Mutla Kaluva of Kolukula Pancahayat between

Yerragondapalem – Kolukula B.T road, that the accused being the driver of tractor drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost his control over steering, resulting which the crime vehicle turned turtle on the 4 left side of B.T road margin in side canal, due to which PW8 to PW12 are sustained multiple injuries on their bodies. D1/Dongari Papulamma and

D2/Dudekula Galemma sustained fatal injuries and shifted to Hospital for treatment. On 24.09.2015, PW1 gave report and then PW13 registered it as a case in Cr.No.84/ 2015 under Sec.337, 304-A IPC. During

Investigation, PW13 recorded the statement of PW1 and sent the dead bodies for keeping them in the mortuary. On 25.09.2015, PW14 took up further investigation. During his investigation, PW24 visited the scene of offence and prepared the Scene Observation report duly signed by the mediators LW14/S.Chinna Satyam and LW15/Gayam Subbareddy; got photographed the scene of offence. Then, he also conducted inquest over the dead body of of D1 and D2 in the presence of LW15/G.Subbareddy,

LW16/A.Lazaru, LW17/B.Kumri, LW18/B.Venkata Subbarao, LW19/D. Hassan

Bee and LW20/D.Nageswara Rao and prepared the inquest report duly signed by them. At the time of inquest, he also recorded the statements of

PW2 to PW4. PW13 also recorded the statements of PW5, PW6, LW7 and

PW7. PW14 further also recorded the statements of PW8 to PW12, then he went to Guntur, where he recorded the statement of PW10. Later, he sent requisition to M.V.I of Markapur for inspecting the crime vehicle. On 30.10.2015, PW15 arrested the accused and sent him for judicial remand.

As the accused failed to produced any documents regarding the crime vehicle then Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act was added.

LW21/Dr.P.Chandra Sekhar issued the wound certificates of PW8 to PW12.

After receipt of postmortem certificates of D1 and D2 and M.V.I report and after completion of Investigation, PW15 filed chargesheet against the

Accused.

3.On appearance of the Accused, copies of the case documents furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined 251 Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation under U/Sec.337, 304-A

IPC and Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec./181 of M.V Act was explained in 5

Telugu for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 are marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, the

Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and no documents are marked.

5.Heard arguments on both sides.

6.Now the point arise for determination is

Whether the prosecution has made out the case against the Accused for the offence U/sec.337, 304-A IPC and Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

7. POINT: To prove its case, the Prosecution examined PW1 to

PW15 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 are marked.

(a) PW1 in his evidence deposed at about one year ago, he was informed about the accident occurred on the road situated in between

Kolukula to Veerabhadrapuram, immediately he went to the scene of offence and found the dead bodies of D1 and D2. Then, he informed to the police, immediately the Yerragondapalem Police came to the scene of offence and obtained his signature on a white paper and Ex.P1, Ex.P2 is his signature and he do not know the contents of the report. During the cross examination by the learned APP, he denied the contents of his statement marked as Ex.P3.

(b) PW2 to PW12 are deposed that they do not know anything about this case and they never received any injuries and police did not examined them. During the cross examination by the learned APP, he denied the contents of his statement marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P14.

(c.) PW13/D. Subbaiah in his evidence deposed that on 24th day of September, 2015 PW1 gave Ex.P15 report and he registered it as

Cr.No.84/15 under Sec.337, 304-A IPC under Ex.P16 F.I.R; during the 6 investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses and sent the dead bodies of D1 and D2 to Govt. Hospital, Yerragondapalem and also seized the crime vehicle. On the same day he gave requisition to M.V.I for inspection of the crime vehicle; on the instructions of PW14/S.I of Police he held inquest over the dead body of D2 in the presence of LW18 to LW20 and also he prepared the Ex.P17 inquest report of D2; during the inquest, he examined PW5 to PW7, LW7/Dudekula Bhadaramma handed over to PW14.

(d) PW14 /Y.Tyagaraju, S.I of Police, on 25th day of September, 2015 he was incharge of Y.Palem police station,he received the case file from PW13 and verified and investigation done by him and found it on correct lines; on the same day he secured the mediators PW1 and

LW15/Gayam Subbareddy, V.R.O and visited the scene of offence and observed the scene and prepared the Ex.P18 Scene Observation report and

Ex.P19 rough sketch of the scene of offence; he visited the Govt. Hospital,

Yerragondapalem and held inquest over the dead body of D1 in the presence of LW15 to LW17 and prepared the Ex.P20 inquest report, during the inquest he examined PW5, PW7. After completion of inquest he made requisition to LW21 for conducting Postmortem examination over the dead body of D1 and D2; he secured PW8, PW11, PW12, PW8 and examined and recorded their statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C; he also recorded the statements of PW10; after that he handed over the case file for further investigation to PW15/P. Mukkanti for further investigation.

(e) PW15/P. Mukkanti, deposed that on 28.09.2015, he received case file from PW14 and found it on correct lines and he arrested Accused as he failed to produce the documents and then he added Sec.192 of M.V

Act and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act; Ex.P21 is memo and then sent accused for judicial remand; after receipt of Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 P.M certificates of deceased and Ex.P24 to Ex.P28 wound certificates of PW11,

PW12, PW9, PW8, PW10 and Ex.P29 is the M.V.I report and after completion 7 of Investigation, he filed chargesheet against Accused.

8. This is a case of ghastly road accident that occurred 24.09.2015 in which two persons were died.PW1 is the Defacto Complainant, who came to the scene of offence after knowing the accident he came to the scene of offence, where the police obtained his signatures on a white paper.

His evidence further is that, he do not know the contents of report and identified his signature as Ex.P1, Ex.P2. On perusal of evidence of entire

Prosecution witnesses, who are PW2 to PW12 received injuries in the said accident and from their evidence nothing material elicited against the

Accused that he committed the offence as alleged by the Prosecution. All the witnesses are turned hostile to the case of Prosecution and failed to identify the accused. None of them supported the case of Prosecution.

The Prosecution also failed to elicit material evidence during the cross examination of witnesses by the learned APP. All are denied their Ex.P2 to

Ex.P14 Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements. PW2 to PW14 are the injured persons in the accident nothing deposed against the Accused. They completely turned hostile to the case of Prosecution. The evidence of PW5 13 to PW15 shows about their investigation in this case, but not the accusation of accused.

Their evidence shows about their registration of case, recording of statements. PW13 to PW15 are interested witnesses. To corroborate their evidence there is no independent witnesses evidence to prove the case of

Prosecution. Without corroborating evidence, the evidence of PW13 to

PW15, who are the interested witnesses, is no way helpful to the case of

Prosecution.

9.From the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

10.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences 8

U/sec.337, 304-A IPC and Sec.192 (1) and Sec.3 r/w Sec.181 of M.V Act.

The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property order is passed since no property in this case.

Typed my Dictation to the Personal Assistant on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1 st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Md.A. Parveez

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur // Appendix of evidence // Witness examined For Prosecution For Defence PW1S. Chinna SatyamNONE PW2D. Chennakesavulu PW3D.Chendrasekhar PW4D.Lakshmidevi PW5D. Chandhaiah PW6D.Moulali PW7D.Beebulu PW8Chenchakumari PW9G. Chennamma PW10D.Sivakumari PW11T.Avulakka PW12G.Venkata Laxmamma PW13D.Subbaiah, ASI 775 PW14Y.Tyagaraju, S.I of Police PW15P. Mukkanti, S.I of Police Documents marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on the report Ex.P2Signature of PW1 in the Scene Observation Report Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P4Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P5Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P6Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P7Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P8Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P9Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P10Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P11Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 Ex.P12Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10 Ex.P13Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW11 Ex.P14Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW12 Ex.P15Report of PW1 dt.24.09.2015 Ex.P16First Information Report Ex.P17Inquest report of D2 Ex.P18Scene Observation Report Ex.P19Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P20Inquest report of D1 Ex.P21Memo Ex.P22Postmortem certificate of D1 Ex.P23Postmortem certificate of D2 Ex.P24Wound certificate of PW8 Ex.P25Wound certificate of PW11 Ex.P26Wound certificate of PW12 Ex.P27Wound certificate of PW9 Ex.P28Wound certificate of PW10 9

Ex.P29M.V.I Report. For DefenceNIL

Material objects marked NIL

Sd/- Md.A. Parveez

A.J.F.C.M, Markapur.

// True Copy //

A.J.M.F.C, Markapur

1 Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 360/2010 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

1. Date of Offence: 25-03-2010

2. Date of report: 25-03-2010

3. Date of arrest of accused: 21-08-2010

4. Date of release on bail: 21-08-2010

5. Date of commencement of trial: 23-04-2013

6. Date of close of trial: 02-11-2015

7. Date of judgment: 12-11-2015

8. Complainant: State : Sub Inspector of police Tripuranthakam P.S.

9.. Accused :

1. *** Shaik Mabasha, S/o.Muthuja, aged 25 years, Muslim, Vengalreddy Nagar, Atmakur, Kurnool District, Driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.A.P. 21 D 6768.

2. Uppu Masthan, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 35 years, caste by Vaddera, R/o.Rajupalem village of Tripuranthakam Mandal, Driver of Tractor & Trailer Bearing No. A.P. 27 AD 9430 & 9431. *** A1 died case against is abated.

10. Offence : U/s.338 & 304-A IPC.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order :In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property, property order does not arise.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 21-10-2010 U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC against A2. On 30-09-2011, A2 present copies of all documents were furnished to him U/s.207 of Cr.P.C and posted for examination. On 07-02-2012 accused examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C. he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried from time to time. On 23-04-2013, PW.1 examined, Ex.P1 marked; on 12-02-2014, PW.2 examined; on 12-08-2014, Pws. 3 & 4 examined, Ex.P2 marked; on 26-09-2014, PW.5 examined; on 29-10-2014, PW.6 examined, Ex.P3 marked; on 25-11-2014, Ex.P4 marked; on 04- 12-2014, PW.8 examined, Ex.P5 marked; on 08-01-2015, PW.9 examined, Exs.P6 & P7 marked; on 06-02-2015, PW.10 examined, Ex.P8 marked and on 02-04-2015, PW.11 examined and prosecution side evidence was closed and posted for U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. on 06-04-2015, A2 was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments from time to time. On 02-11-2015 arguments were concluded on both sides and posted for Judgment. On 12-11-2015 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class Markapur Copy Submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole. The Superintendent of police, Ongole.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

Present : Sri.Sk.Md.A.Parveez Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Thursday this the 12th day of November, 2015.

C.C. No. 360/2010

State : Sub Inspector of police, Tripuranthakam police station… Complainant

Vs.,

1. *** Shaik Mabasha, S/o.Muthuja, aged 25 years, Muslim, Vengalreddy Nagar, Atmakur, Kurnool District, Driver of Tata Indica Car bearing No.A.P. 21 D 6768.

2. Uppu Masthan, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 35 years, caste by Vaddera, R/o.Rajupalem village of Tripuranthakam Mandal, Driver of Tractor & Trailer Bearing No. A.P. 27 AD 9430 & 9431.

*** A1 died case against is abated.

….. Accused

Deceased: Shaik Mabasha, S/o.Muthuja, aged 25 years, Muslim.

This case is coming on 02-11-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri.M.Sri Rami Reddy, Advocate for the accused upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T // 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Tripuranthakam Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused 1 & 2 in Cr.No.9/2010 for the offences punishable

U/sec.338 & 304-A of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- Pw.1-Lokasani

Govardhan Reddy along with PW.3-Shaik Rafik and PW.6-Shaik Kalam left their village in Tata Indica car bearing No.AP 21 D 6768 driven by the deceased/A1.

On 25-03-2010, after completion of their work they reached near Kesinenipalli village at about 11-00 P.M., A1/deceased being the driver of car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the back side of 3 the bricks tractor & trailer bearing No. A.P. 27 AD 9430 & 9431 (hereinafter referred as crime vehicle) which was stationed on the left side of the road by the driver/A2 of tractor without taking any precautions, as a result of which, A1 and

Pws. 3 & 5 received bleeding injuries and shifted to Govt. Hospital Y.Palem, on the way A1 succumbed to injuries. Later, PW.1 gave report to police, basing on

Ex.P1-Report, police registered the case in Cr.No.9/2010 for the offences

U/sec.337 & 304-A IPC under Ex.P6-FIR. During the course of investigation, police visited the scene of offence, prepared Ex.P7-Rough sketch of scene of offence, examined witnesses, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P2-inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. That on 21-08-2010, PW.15-A.V.Ramana, S.I. of police, arrested

A2 on his surrender and produced him before the Court for judicial remand, after receipt of Exs. P4 & 5-wound certificates of PWs. 3 & 5; Ex.P8-MVI Report and

Ex.P3-post-mortem certificate of the deceased/A1 and all documents and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against A2 and the same is taken on file U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC.

3.On appearance of A2, he was furnished with copies of the case documents as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C.

for the offences punishable U/secs.338 & 304-A IPC, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked

Exs. P1 to P8.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, A2 was examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C. enabling him to explain on the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same. No defence evidence is reported.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

4

7.Now the point that arises for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of A2 for the

offences U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. POINT :The prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent act of

A2 in causing the death of the deceased/A1 and injuries to PWs.3 & 5, for proving the allegation against him. The prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs. P1 to P8. PW.1 who is the eyewitness and who engaged the

Tata Indica car, who set the law into motion deposed that nearly two years ago while they are coming from Khamma in Tata Indica car, the said accident occurred near Tripuranthakam area. A1/deceased is the driver of Tata Indica car, when A1 hit a stationed tractor & trailer the said accident occurred, the said accident occurred due to lighting of opposite vehicle, A2 was not taken any precautions of signals, in that accident himself and PW.3 sustained injury, they were shifted to Y.palem Govt. Hospital, in an Ambulance, A1 died while shifting to hospital. Later, he gave Ex.P1-Report to police. He further stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of A1/deceased the said accident occurred.

9.The prosecution examined, PW.2-Akula Salam Basha, who came to know about the accident in his evidence deposed that at about four years back A1 died due to car accident, he came to know that the rash and negligent driving of A1 the accident occurred and he died.

10.The prosecution examined, PWs. 3 & 5, who are the injured in the said accident in their evidence deposed that on 25-03-2010, while they were proceeding in Tata India car from Tadivaripalli gudem to Atmakur near

Tripuranthakam due to the rash and negligent driving of A1/driver of Tata Indica he dashed to the stationed tractor & trailer the accident occurred, as a result of it,

A1 died on the spot, they sustained injuries and shifted to hospital for treatment.

11.The prosecution examined PW.4, who is the mediator for inquest of A1 in his evidence deposed that at about 4 years back, in his presence police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Y.Palem Govt.

5 Hospital, he noticed the injuries on the dead body of A1, police prepared Ex.P2- inquest report in his presence, he singed on it.

12.The prosecution examined PW.6-Dr.P.Chandrasekhar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of A1/deceased in his evidence deposed that on 26- 03-2010, he conducted post-Morten over the dead of A1/deceased and issued

Ex.P3-P.M. report opining that the death of the deceased is caused due to head injury followed by vital centers damage followed by cardiac and respiratory aspect.

The prosecution examined PW.7-Dr.TVS Reddy at Kurnool, who treated

PW.5 in his evidence deposed that on 26-03-2010 he treated PW.5 and issued

Ex.P4-wound certificate opining that the injuries are grievous in nature.

The prosecution examined PW.8-Dr.K.Venkateswara Rao at Kurnool, who treated PW.4 in his evidence deposed that on 26-03-2010 he treated PW.4 and issued Ex.P5-wound certificate opining that the injuries are grievous in nature.

13.PW.9/Investigating Officer, who registered Ex.P6-FIR, basing on Ex.P1-

Report of PW.1 deposed that he examined the witnessed and recorded their statement, he also visited the scene of offence prepared Ex.P7-Rough sketch of the scene of offence, in the presence of mediators, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P2-inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and went to GGH Kurnool, there he examined Pws.

3 & 5 and recorded their statements and sent requisition to MVI, Markapur.

Later, he handed over the case file to PW.10/S.I. Of police.

The prosecution examined PW.10/MVI who inspected the car bearing No.

A.P. 21 D 6768 and issued Ex.P8-MVI report opining that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects. The learned defence counsel cross- examined them, but nothing much substantial came in favour of the accused.

6

14. PW.11/Investigating officer, in his evidence deposed that on receipt of case file, he took up investigation. On 21-08-2010, he arrested A2 on his surrender and produced him before the Court for judicial remand, after receipt of

Exs. P3 & 4-wound certificates of PWs. 3 & 5; Ex.P8-MVI Report and Ex.P3- post-mortem certificate of the A1/deceased and all documents and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross- examination nothing much substantial came in favour of the accused.

15.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, prosecution on examination of PWs. 1 to 11 proved that the accident occurred, the deceased/A1 died and PWs.3 & 5 received injuries due to the said accident, if the evidence on record is perused. If the evidence of PWs. 1 to 11 perused, it categorically narrates the details of the accident in their evidence regarding place of occurrence of accident, receipt of injuries, death of the A1/deceased. Though

PWs.1 to 11 is perused that the said accident is occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car i.e. A1/deceased only. Therefore, the depositions of PWs. 1 to 11 with the support of Exs.P1 to P8 prosecution proved that the accident occurred near Tripuranthakam village. Likewise, Exs.P4 & 5-wound certificates of PWs.3 & 5, Ex.P3-post-mortem certificate of the deceased establishes the case of prosecution. However, prosecution failed to prove that A2 was the driver of the tractor and trailer and he stationed the said tractor and trailer without taking any precautions, as none of the eyewitnesses or the circumstantial witnesses deposed anything against A2. It is the only evidence of police/PW.11 that implicates A2 as the driver of the tractor and trailer. Mere arrest of A2 is not sufficient to prove prima-facie case without establishing the ingredients of Sec.338 & 304-A IPC. Therefore, the evidence of

Pws.11 could not be relied much more particularly when the eyewitnesses/injured did not support the case of prosecution either in identifying

A2 as the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time or the rash and negligent act of A2, as such, I am of the opinion that the benefit of doubt could be 7 extended in favour of A2. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of A2 and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.338 & 304-A IPC and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six (6) months U/sec.437(A)

Cr.P.C. As there is no property, property order does not arise.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of November, 2015.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MARKAPUR

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For prosecution For defence PW1: Lokasani Govardhan ReddyNone PW2: Akula Salam Basha PW3: Shaik Rafik PW4: K.Linga Reddy PW5: Shaik Kalam PW6: Dr.P.Chandrasekhara Rao PW7: Dr.T.V.S.Reddy PW8: Dr.Venkateswara Rao PW9: Sk.Patcha Saheb, ASI of police PW10: S.Azad Jakeer, MVI PW11: A.V.Ramana, S.I. of police

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 given to police Ex.P2: Inquest report of A1 Ex.P3: Post-Mortem report of A1 Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW.5 Ex.P5: Wound certificate of PW.3 Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: MVI report

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil

Material Objects Marked

Nil

AJMFC, Markapur

1

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 535/2014 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

1. Date of Offence: 24-09-2014

2. Date of report: 24-09-2014

3. Date of arrest of accused: 07-10-2014

4. Date of release on bail: 07-10-2014

5. Date of commencement of trial: 05-08-2015

6. Date of close of trial: 09-11-2015

7. Date of judgment: 12-11-2015

8. Complainant: State : Sub Inspector of police Dornala P.S.

9.. Accused : Cherukuri Kondala Rao,

S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 25 years, Kamma by caste, R/o.Bollapalli Toll Plaza, In charge, Martur,N/o.Chellemma Thota Street, Tangutur village & Mandal, Rider of Bajaj Avenger Motorcycle AP 27 AW 2564.

10. Offence : U/sec.304-A IPC & Sec. 3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act.

11. Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty

12. Finding of court: Found not guilty

13. Sentence or order :In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act; and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, property order does not arise.

14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 18-12-2014 for the offences U/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act; against the accused. On 24-02-2015 Accused called present, Copies of all documents were furnished to him U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. The case is posted for examination. On 21-07-2015, accused wsa examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C. He pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried and posted for trial. On 05-08-2015, PW.1 examined, Exs. P1 & P2 marked; on 13-08-2015, Pws. 2 & 3 examined, Exs. P3 & P4 marked; on 26-08-2015, PW.4 examined, Exs. P5 & P6 marked; on 03-09-2015 Pws. 5 & 6 examined, Exs. P7 & P8 marked; on 03-11-2015, Pws.7 & 8 examined, Exs. P9 to P13 marked; and prosecution side evidence was closed and posted for U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. On 06-11-2015, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and reported no defence evidence and posted for arguments. On 09-11-2015, arguments were concluded on both sides and posted for Judgment. On 12-11-2015 Judgment pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First class Markapur Copy Submitted to : The Hon’ble 1st Addl. District Judge, Ongole. The Superintendent of police, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

MARKAPUR

Present : Sri.Sk.Md.A.Parveez, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Markapur

Thursday this the 12th day of November, 2015.

C.C. No. 535/2014

State : Sub Inspector of police, Dornala police station… Complainant

Vs.,

Cherukuri Kondala Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 25 years, Kamma by caste, R/o.Bollapalli Toll Plaza, In charge, Martur, N/o.Chellemma Thota Street, Tangutur village & Mandal, Rider of Bajaj Avenger Motorcycle AP 27 AW 2564.

….. Accused

This case is coming on 09-11-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri.M.Sri Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Accused upon perusing the material on record and hearing the arguments on both sides having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- // J U D G M E N T // 1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Dornala Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No.98/2014 for the offences punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:- That on 24-09- 2014, the accused and the deceased/Anand Kumar after paying respect to the lord at Srisailam, they returned to attend the duty left from Srisailam on

Motorcycle bearing No. A.P. 27 AW 2564 (hereinafter referred as crime vehicle), the accused driven the crime vehicle, the deceased being the pillion rider of the crime vehicle, they reached near Chinthala village on the Ghat road, the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, could not control the crime vehicle skid and hit against the hillock, then the deceased fell on the road and succumbed to injuries on the spot. At that time Pws. 1 to 4, who are inmates of RTC bus bearing No. A.P. 16 Z 0138 witnessed the accident, shifted the 3 accused and the deceased to Govt. Hospital, Dornala. On 24-09-2014, PW.1-

Movva Ramoji Rao, driver of APSRTC bus, gave Ex.P9-Report to police, basing on the same, PW.8-B.Brahma Naidu, S.I. Of police, registered the case in

Cr.No.98/2014 for the offences U/sec.304-A IPC under Ex.P10-FIR, visited scene of offence, examined prosecution witnesses, prepared Ex.P5-observation report, Ex.P11-Rough sketch of the scene of offence, photographed the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P6-

Inquest report, sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the accused is not having valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. On 07-10-2014, the Accused surrendered before PW.7-A.Gopala Krishna, Head constable, then he arrested and released on station bail and after receipt of Ex.P13-Post-mortem certificate of the deceased and Ex.P12-MVI report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the Accused and the same is taken on file U/sec.304-A IPC & Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V.Act.

3.On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with copies of the case documents as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined U/s.251 of Cr.P.C.

for the offences punishable U/sec.304-A IPC Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act against the Accused; he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8 and got marked

Exs. P1 to P13.

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

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. enabling him to explain on the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same. No defence evidence is reported and no documents are marked.

6.Heard arguments on both sides.

7.Now the point that arises for determination is

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the Accused for

the offences U/sec.304-A IPC & Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act; beyond all

reasonable doubt?

4

8. POINT :The prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent act of the accused in causing the death of the deceased/Anand, for proving the allegation against the Accused, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs. P1 to P13. As per prosecution case, PW.1, who witnessed the accident and who set the law into motion deposed that about one year back while he was driver of APSRTC bus from Vijayawada to Srisailam, at about 7-30 a.m., he noticed one motorcycle fell down by the side of the road. He further stated that he did notice any person and number of the motorcycle. He further stated that police obtained his Ex.P1-Signature on white papers at police station. He further stated that he does not know anything about this case, turned hostile to the prosecution case and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2.

The prosecution projected, PW.2-Ch.Praveen; PW.3-S.Narendra and

PW.5-S.Subba Rao, who are eyewitnesses to the accident and inmates of

APSRTC bus. But, in their evidence they deposed that they do not know anything about this case they did not witness anything. The prosecution also projected PW.6-A.Kumar Singh, who is the friend of the deceased came to know about the accident and visited the hospital. But, in his evidence he deposed that he does not know anything about this case. He further stated that he does not know anything about this case, turned hostile to the prosecution case and his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P8.

The prosecution examined PW.4-D.Galaiah, who is the mediator for observation of scene of offence and inquest report in his evidence deposed that at about one year back at about 11-00 a.m., police observed scene of offence in his presence, prepared Ex.P5-observation report. He further stated that on the same day police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Govt.

Hospital, Markapur in his presence, police prepared Ex.P6-inquest report, he singed on it.

The prosecution examined PW.7/Head Constable, who arrested the accused on his surrender on 07-10-2014 and released him on station bail.

5

9.PW.8/Investigating officer in his evidence deposed that, on receipt of

Ex.P9-Report of PW.1, basing on the same, he registered the case in

Cr.No.98/2014 for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC under Ex.P10-FIR, visited scene of offence, examined prosecution witnesses, prepared Ex.P5-observation report,

Ex.P11-Rough sketch of the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P6-Inquest report, sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the accused is not having valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. On 07-10-2014, the Accused surrendered before PW.7, then he arrested them and released on station bail and after receipt of Ex.P13-

Post-mortem certificate of the deceased and Ex.P12-MVI report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination nothing much substantial came in favour of the accused.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, the prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent act of the Accused in causing the death of the deceased. In the present case, though PWs. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 turned hostile to the prosecution case and their 161 Cr.P.C. statements i.e. Exs.P2 to P4, P7 & P8 marked during their cross-examination by the learned Assistant public prosecutor, but nothing came in favour of prosecution case. They categorically stated that they do not know how the deceased died, they do not know anything about the case. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, 5 & 6 not receives corroboration from the evidence of investigating officer with regard to the accident. PW.8, who registered Ex.P10-FIR basing on Ex.P9-Report of PW.1. As per Ex.P9, PW.1 stated that he does not witness the registration number of the crime vehicle, but he stated before the police that he can identify the accused, but failed to do so

before this court, hence the ingredients U/sec.304-A IPC i.e. rash and negligent

act of the accused in causing death of the deceased was not established by the prosecution, so also, the identity of the accused regarding rider of crime vehicle 6 at the relevant point of time. However, the evidence of PW.8, which came incriminating against the accused could not be relied much more particularly when the prosecution witnesses did not support the case of prosecution in identifying the accused, as the driver of the crime vehicle and also with regard to the rash and negligent act of the accused in causing death of the deceased.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the

Accused

11.In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences U/sec.304-A IPC & Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

12.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences U/sec.304-A

IPC and Sec.3 r/w.181 of M.V. Act; and he is acquitted of the same U/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, property order does not arise.

Typed to my dictation, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of November, 2015.

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MARKAPUR

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined

For prosecution For defence PW1: Movva Ramoji Rao None PW2: Chebrolu Praveen PW3: Sabbineni Narendra PW4: Dudekula Galib PW5: Sanikanti Subba Rao PW6: Aniyesh Kumar Singh PW7: A.Gopala Krishna, Head constable PW8: B.Brahma Naidu, S.I. Of police.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw.1 on the report given to police Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P5: Observation report 7

Ex.P6: Inquest report Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P9: Report of PW.1 given to police Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: Rough sketch Ex.P12: MVI Report Ex.P13: Post-mortem certificate of the deceased.

Exhibits marked for defence

Nil

Material objects marked for NIL

AJMFC, Markapur

In the result, the case is committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Prakasam

Division, Ongole under Section 209 (a) of Cr.P.C. Accused hereby directed to attend

before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole after receipt of

summons from the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole. 

The Office is directed to submit the case property, documents and articles if any to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Prakasam Division, Ongole.

JMFC, Markapur.

This petition filed seeking enlargement of the accused on bail. On receipt of notice the learned A.P.P. endorsed on memo that seen and opposed and there may be chance jumping of bail.

Heard both the counsels. Considering the contentions of the prosecution and gravity of offence and it appears that investigation is still in progress. This is not a fit case where the petitioners be enlarged on bail. In these circumstances, the petitioners cannot be released at this stage. Hence, petition is dismissed.

In the result, petition is dismissed.