Ms. Sree Lakshmi Nageedi

* IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE)

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Smt. N. Sree Lakshmi., Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017.

C.C. No. 148/2016

(Original C.C.No.591/2015 on the file of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of Class, Vizianagaram)

Between: State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police Station.

...Complainant.

And: Jakkampudi Srinivas, S/o.late Satyanarayana, 30 years, Telaga by caste, Kotha Kopperla village, Pusapatirega mandal, Driver of Swaraj Van bearing No. AP 30 U 6703.

… Accused.

This case coming on 28-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of

Complainant/State represented by the police, and of Sri P.Janardhana Rao,

Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.72/2015 against accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

The brief facts of the Prosecution case are that:

P.W.1 is resident of Kamavaram village, Pusapatirega Mandal and living by doing coolie works. The deceased Adapaka Thotayya is the husband of

P.W.1 and he used to guard the mango tope belongs to R & B Department.

On 16.4.2015, afternoon at about 14.20 hours, after completion of lunch, the deceased started from his house to go to mango tope located by the side of the NH-16 road for guarding and while crossing the road at about 14.30 hours, the accused being the driver of Van bearing No. AP 30 U 6703 drove it in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Srikakulam side to

Visakhapatnam side and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the 2 deceased received injuries on his chest, stomach, scratch injury on the right cheek, blood oozed out from the mouth and died on the spot.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.72/2015, u/sec.304-A IPC of Pusapatirega Police station was registered by P.W.5 on 16.4.2015 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, P.W.6 examined witnesses, recorded their statements, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, got prepared an observation report, drew rough sketch, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the corpse for autopsy. On 25.4.2015, P.W.6 served notice on accused u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

and after receipt of Postmortem report and MVI Report from the concerned, charge sheet is filed.

02. On consideration of the material, the case has been taken on file for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused and numbered as

C.C.591/2015 on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents have been furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C. At that stage, in terms of the orders of the Honourable District court in P.R.No.32/2016-A, dated 28-01- 2016 the matter has been transferred to the file of this court and renumbered as C.C.148/2016.

03. The Accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined

P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got exhibited Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material and stated that he has no defence evidence. He further stated that he didn't commit any offence.

04.Heard arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for Accused.

05. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that Accused was the driver of crime vehicle. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. He stated about the death of deceased. P.W.2 is eye witness. He identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.3 is the inquest panchayatdar. P.W.4 3 is the Mediator and he stated about the preparation of scene observation report by the Police in his presence and about his participation in it. P.W.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has stated about the condition of the crime vehicle. P.W.6 is the investigating Officer in this case and he stated about the registration of case and filing of charge sheet. All the witnesses supported the case of prosecution and hence the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

06.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the witness who is cited as eye witness to the accident deposed in his cross examination that he saw the accident when the people gathered the scene of of offence. P.W.1 came to know about the accident. He contended that since there is no direct witness and as such there is no evidence to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

07.Now, the points for determination are : -

1) Whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Van bearing No. AP 30 U 6703 at the time of accident?

2) Whether the accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused the death of the deceased ?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the Accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

4) To what relief ?

08. Point Nos.1to 3 :- I have perused the evidence and other material available on record.

09. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and there by caused the death of deceased Thotayya.

4

10.From the entire evidence, it emerges that the defacto complainant was examined as PW1. She deposed that the deceased is her husband and about two years back, husband met with an accident at Kamavaram Junction. She was informed about the accident by one person. Immediately, she rushed to the spot and found dead body of her husband. She gave report to the police.

Ex.P.1 is her report.

11.P.W.2 stated that an accident took place at kamavaram junction, that one Thotayya tried to cross the road and in the meanwhile one van hit him and he died on the spot. He can identify the driver of the van on the date of the offence. The accused who was present in the Court is the driver of the van on the date of accident. During his cross examination, he deposed that he went to the scene of the offence to see the accident when the people gathered at the spot.

12.P.W.3 is inquestdar. He deposed that he know the deceased and he is junior paternal uncle. He met with an accident at Kamavaram junction. He came to know about the accident. He was present at the time of inquest conducted over the dead body of deceased. The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pusapatirega PS conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report. At the time of inquest they have opined that the deceased died due to the accident. He has affixed his thumb impression on the inquest report along with others.

13.P.W.4 is the mediator to the scene observation report. He deposed that about one year ten months back, an accident took place at Kamavaram junction. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police station asked him and L.W.9 A.Mahalakshmu Naidu to come to the scene of offence at about 4.00 pm. The Sub-Inspector of Police drafted inquest report and also drafted scene observation report in their presence. He had signed on inquest report and the scene observation report. Ex.P.3 is scene observation report dated 16.4.2015.

5

14.P.W.5 is the M.V.Inspector. He deposed that on 27.4.2015 he received requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police, Pusapatirega Police station, to inspect the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 30 U 6703 Goods carriage on 28.4.2015, at 8.00 am at Pusapatirega, inspected the crime vehicle and found 1) left side outside rear view mirror glass broken and braking condition of the vehicle is effective. He issued MVI report under Ex.P.4 opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects.

15.P.W.6 is Investigation officer. He deposed that on 16.4.2015 at 15.30 hours, he received a written report from complainant basing on which he registered a case in Cr.No.72/2015 u/.sec.304-A IPC. Ex.P.5 is FIR. He examined P.W.1 in the police station, recorded their statement, visited scene of offence, secured mediators and some witnesses and drafted scene observation report, prepared Ex.P.6 rough sketch, got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of blood relatives and inquestdars, sent the dead body for Post mortem examination . He further stated that on 25.4.2015, the accused voluntarily came to the police station and surrendered before him. He issued notice u/sec.41 A Cr.P.C. to the accused. After receipt of Ex.P.7 Postmortem report and MVI report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

16.The learned defense counsel contended that there is no eye witness to depose that the accused committed the accident and thereby caused the death of the deceased. From the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for accused, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the identity of accused or the rash or negligent act committed by the accused to attract the offence under section 304-A IPC. Even though, P.W.2 deposed in his chief examination that he can identify the driver of the crime vehicle, at the time of his cross examination he deposed that he identified the accused at the instance of the police. Therefore, his evidence is not trustworthy to believe the case of the prosecution. When there is no sufficient evidence before the court as to the identity of the accused, then the accused cannot be convicted for the 6 alleged offence. Under these circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused for the alleged offence. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A

IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

17. POINT No. 4 :- In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall execute bond for Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only)u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the

Appellate Court, if any Appeal is filed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on, this the 2nd day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Smt.N.SreeLakshmi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses Examined.

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Adapaka Bodamma - None - P.W.2 : Edadasi Ramasuri P.W.3 : Adapaka Pentayya P.W.4 : Nadipena Laxmunaidu P.W.5 : G.Srujana, Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.6 : S.Srinivas, Sub-Inspector of Police

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1 on dt.16-04-2015 - Nil - Ex.P.2: Inquest report dated 16.4.2015 Ex.P.3 : Scene observation report dated 16.4.2015 Ex.P.4: MVI report Ex.P.5: FIR in Crime No.72/2015 of Pusapatirega P.S. u/sec.304-A IPC Ex.P.6: Rough sketch Ex.P.7: Post Mortem certificate Ex.P.8: Photographs (three in number)

Material Objects Marked.

-Nil-

Sd/- Smt.N.SreeLakshmi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE)

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Smt. N. Sree Lakshmi., Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Monday, the 1st day of May, 2017.

C.C. No.520/2017

(Original C.C.No.107/2016 on the file of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of Class, Vizianagaram)

Between: State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police Station.….Complainant.

And:

L.S.T.B.V.Narasamamba, W/o.L.Nageswara Rao, MIG 49, Law sons bay colony, Visakhapatnam – 530017. … Accused.

This case having come on 28.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of

Complainant/State represented by the police, and of Sri V.Sudhakara Rao,

Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, Bhogapuram Police station filed charge sheet in Crime No.41/2015, against accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

The brief facts of the Prosecution case are that:

That there is a quarry belonging to Miracle Software Company situated at the out skirts of Ramachandrapeta village. The quarrying continued till

before one year due to which there occurred deed pits with water and now

the digging was stopped. But the management negligently abandoned water pits without patching pits and did not take any precautionary measures either erecting caution boards or fencing. The Management of Miracle software was procuring water from water pits and using to their company necessities. Earlier two persons died by drowning into said pits. The

Management did not respond and take any precautionary measures. On 01.03.2015 Sunday, at about, 12-00 noon the second son of Defacto

Complainant by name Dukka Ramesh (herein after referred to as “deceased”) went to play nearby quarry area and died by drowning into quarry waterpit. Hence, P.W.1 gave report to police and requested to take necessary action against Management of Miracle Software Company.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.5 registered a case in Cr.No.41/2015 u/sec.304 (A) IPC of Bhogapuram PS. During the course of investigation,

P.W.5 visited scene of offence, observed it in the presence of mediators, seized sample water of quarry pit under the cover of scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest Panchayatdars and sent the body for

Postmortem examination to L.W.10 Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital,

Vizianagaram who issued final Postmortem certificate. L.W.11, Assistant

Director of Mines and Geology, Vizianagaram had issued a report stating that accused leased out the quarry for road metal and building stone over an extent of 2.000 hectors in S.No.99/2010 of Kongavanipalem revenue and it expired on 8.2.2012. P.W.5 served notice upon the accused u/sec.41-A Cr.P.C.

on 5.01.2016. After completion of investigation,P.W.5 filed charge sheet against accused.

03. On consideration of the material, the case has been taken on file for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the accused and numbered as

C.C. 107/2016 on the file of the Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,

Vizianagaram. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents have been furnished to the accused u/s 207 Cr.P.C.

04. At that stage, in terms of the orders of the Honourable District court in

P.R.No.6/2017-A, dated 05-01-2017 the matter has been transferred to the file of this court and renumbered as C.C.520/2017. The Accused has been examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5. The prosecution has got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14. After closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she denied the incriminating material and stated that she has no defence evidence.

06.Heard arguments of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and Learned

Counsel for the Accused.

07. The learned APP submitted that prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.14. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and he is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is the grand father of the deceased. P.W.3 is cited as eye witness. He turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

P.W.4 is the mediator to the inquest report. P.W.5 is the investigating officer.

He stated about the registration of case, investigation done by him and filing of charge sheet against the accused. He submitted that due to the negligence of the accused, the deceased fell down on quarry and found dead and hence the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

08.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that P.W.1,2 came to know about the incident. P.W.3 is turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.5 is not reliable. He further contended that no evidence is placed to prove that quarry is under the lease of the accused by the time of the accident and due to the negligence of the accused, the deceased drowned into quarry.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

09.Now, the points for determination are : -

1) Whether the said quarry is under the lease of the accused by the time of the incident?

2) Whether there is any negligence on the part of the accused which resulted in death of Ramesh?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC?

4) To what relief ?

10. Point No.1 to 3 :- I have perused the evidence and other material available on record.

11. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec. 304-A IPC the prosecution has to prove that the said quarry is under the lease of the accused by the time of the incident and the negligence of the accused leads to the death of Ramesh.

12.P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the grandfather of the deceased. P.W.3 is cited as eye-witness. All the three witnesses deposed about the death of

Ramesh. While coming to cause of death, all the three witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

13.P.W.4 is the mediator to the inquest report. He deposed that about three years back, the deceased Ramesh was expired. He attended at the time of inquest held over the dead body of deceased Ramesh. At that time of inquest, they have opined that the Ramesh was expired since he was drowned into quarry. Ex.P.4 is inquest report.

14.P.W.5, SI of Police deposed that on 1.3.0215 at about 16.30 hours while he was present in the police station, P.W.1 came and presented a written report and he registered the same as case in Crime No.41/2015 u/sec.304-A

IPC. He visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence, drafted scene observation report, prepared rough sketch, got photographed the scene of offence. He further deposed that he shifted the dead body of the deceased to District Hospital, Vizianagaram. On 2.3.2015, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of

Panchayatdars and blood relatives. After receiving of preliminary report, he sent Material objects to RFSL, Visakhapatnam and after receipt of RFSL report, he received final PMC. He addressed a letter to Tahsildar

Bhogapuram to furnish the survey number and details of ownership over the scene of offence. He received reply that the scene of offence belongs to

S.No.99/10 which is classified as Government land and advised him to approach Mines Department for further details. Then, he approached

Asst.Director of Mines and Geology and he was informed that the scene of offence was not in the name of accused and he told him that the accused has to replace that area after finishing their work. He was also informed that the accused again applied for lease and the same is pending before

Government. On 5.1.2015 he served 41-A notice to the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

15.The learned defense counsel contended that there is no evidence

before the court that the quarry is under the lease of the accused and the

negligence of the accused resulted in the death of the deceased. From the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel

for accused, there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish

that due the negligence of the accused, the deceased was drowned into quarry. The prosecution cited P.W.3 as eye witness to the incident. However, he turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. From the evidence of P.W.5, it was elicited that the said quarry is under the control of the Government by the time of the offence and it is not in the name of the accused. Since the eye witness turned hostile, the learned APP given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served, even if they are examined. When there is no sufficient evidence before the court as to the negligence of the accused which resulted in the death of Ramesh, then the accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. Under these circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused for the alleged offence. I, therefore, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

16. POINT No. 4 :- In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Accordingly, she is acquitted under

Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The accused shall execute bond for Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees Five thousand only) u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before the

Appellate Court, if any Appeal is filed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on, this the 01st day of May, 2017.

Sd/- Smt.N.SreeLakshmi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses Examined.

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : D.Appanna- None -

P.W.2 : Durga Appala Guruvulu

P.W.3 : Durga Guruvulu

P.W.4 : D.Appanna

P.W.5 : D.Deenabandu

Exhibits Marked.

For Prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P.1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. - Nil -

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.4: Inquest report dated 2.3.2015.

Ex.P.5: Original FIR in Crime No.41/2015 of Bhogapuram Police station

Ex.P.6: Scene observation report dated 1.3.2015

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch

Ex.P.8: Preliminary post mortem report of the deceased

Ex.P.9: Post mortem certificate of the deceased

Ex.P.10: RFSL report dated 13.4.2015

Ex.P.11: RFSL report dated 15.4.2015

Ex.P.12: Report given by Mines Department

Ex.P.13: Report issued by Tahsildar

Ex.P.14: Photos, four in number, along with CD.

Material Objects Marked. -Nil-

Sd/- Smt.N.SreeLakshmi,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (EXCISE)

VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt. N. Sreelakshmi

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Spl. Mobile Court, Vizianagaram

(FAC) Judl. Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Vizianagaram.

Thursday, the 17th day of November, 2016

C.C.No.646 of 2014

Between: State represented by the Inspector of Police, Proh., & Excise, Nellimarla. …Complainant.

A n d :

Reddy Srinu S/o Sanyasappadu. Gushini (Village) Nellimarla. … Accused.

This case coming on 15.11.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the State and Sri M.Sankara Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The then Inspector of Police, Proh., & Excise, Nellimarla laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.34(a) of A. P. Excise Act, 1968 in Crime No.84/2014-15 with the following allegations that:

2.On 14.06.2014, at about 17.30 a.m., Sri P.Sridhar P&E Sub-Inspector,

Enforcement Wing, Vizianagaram (PW1) along with his staff i.e., K.Appala Raju, P&

E Head Constable , K. Simhachalam P&E Constables and P.V.S Ramaraju, P&E Sub

Inspector, Enforcement wing, Vizianagaram (LWs 2,3 and 4) while conducting raid at Gushini village limits and found the accused person in possession of one polythene bag containing two cartoon boxes, one box containing with 48 Officers

Choice whisky 180 m.l bottels and the 2nd box containing with 48 Gold Riband

Elite whisky 180 m.l bottles total(96) IML bottles without any bill or license. Later

PW1 tried for mediators through K. Appala Raju, P&E Head Constable (LW2) but in vain. On interrogation by PW1, the accused revealed his identity and stated that he purchased the said I.M.L bottles from shop at Nellimarla, and the same for selling to eke out his livelihood. Later, PW1 drawn two bottles of 180 ml of I.M.L from each bottle each brand for chemical analysis and seized the remaining property on 2 the spot and got sealed and affixed identification slips duly signed by him and obtained the thumb impression of the accused and arrested him after informing the grounds of arrest, under the cover of occurrence report drafted at the scene of offence and the grounds of arrest was informed to his relatives. Later PW1 on the same day at about 8-00 p.m., handed over the accused, property and case records to the Smt Ch.Divya, P&E Constable, Nellimarla (LW5). The P&E Sub-Inspector Sri

P. Atchuta Rao (LW5) received the case from the sentry constable and registered the same as case in Cr.No.84/2014-15 u/s 34(a) of AP Excise Act and sent the accused for judicial custody on 15-06-2014. During the further investigation, the P&E

Inspector Sri M.S.N.V.Mani (LW7) sent the sample to the Government Chemical

Examiner, Visakhapatnam for chemical analysis who opined that the samples are

Indian Made Liquor vide C.E.No.878/2014 dated 04-08-2014 SL.No.10889 & 90.

The seized property was produced before the Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and

Excise, Vizianagaram for confiscation u/sec.13(1) of A.P.P.Act. Then, the P&E

Inspector Smt. M.S.N.V.Mani further investigated in the case and filed charge sheet.

Hence charge sheet.

3. Upon consideration of the material placed before the Court, cognizance for the offence punishable u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was taken against the Accused.

On appearance of accused he was supplied with the copies of case documents as required u/sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short Cr.P.C.) and he was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. with reference to the allegations made in the charge sheet. Then a charge u/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed against the accused for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The Prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused has examined

PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 and MO1 & 2 sample bottles and the evidence of LWs 3 and 4 given up and L.W.5 to 7 closed.. After closure of the

Prosecution evidence, Accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence against him in the Prosecution evidence, for which he denied as being false and pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused.

3

6.Now the points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the accused is found in possession of 48 bottles of Officers Choice whisky each 180 m.l in cartoon box and 48 bottles of Gold Riband whisky each 180 m,l in another carton box. in the polythene bag and also the accused failed to produced licence or permit and thereby committed the offence punishable u/sec.34(a) A.P Excise Act ?

(ii) Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 34(a) A.P Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(iii) To what relief?

7.POINT No.(i) :- In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 & PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 and MO1 & 2. The case of the prosecution is that, PW1 arrested the accused and seized 48 Officers Choice whisky 180 m.l bottels and the 2nd box containing with 48 Gold Riband Elite whisky 180 Ml. bottles total(96) IML bottle in two cartoon boxes alleging that the accused was found with the said property and prepared Ex.P1 occurrence report at the scene of offence. Then the P&E Sub-Inspector (LW5) registered a case in

Cr.No.84/14-15 and issued FIR, sent the accused for remand. Later LW7 sent the sample for chemical analysis and received the analyst report with an opinion that the sample is Indian Liquor .

8.Since there are no independent witnesses to the case of prosecution and PW1 and PW2 are official witnesses, their evidence has to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. During the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he did not secure the mediators at the scene of offence. Further , they didn't serve written notices to the Village Talayari, VRO and Panchayat Secretary requesting them to act as mediators. PW1 deposed that they noticed the accused with gunny bag where as

PW2 deposed that they noticed the accused with polythene bag. Further, Ex.P1 does not state that the raid party tried to secure any mediators. According to

Sec.100(4) Cr.P.C., at the time of search and seizure, it is the obligation on the part of the officer who conducted the search and seizure to secure local inhabitants to prove the seizure when the officials failed to secure the independent witnesses, the search and seizure is not free from doubt and the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

4

9.It is not the case of the prosecution that the scene of offence is an isolated place and no independent witnesses were available. More so, the alleged offence took place at about 17.30 hrs, and certainly, all the persons in the village will be available. Further PW1 tried to secure mediators through LW2 but in vain creates suspicion in the prosecution case. Our Honourable High Court of A.P. in a case of

Y.Sreenivasulu Reddy Vs. State of AP 1held that “if no one was willing to act as punch witness, a written order should be passed for the purpose of conducting search and seizure and in the said case entire search conducted by the Prosecution is vitiated’.

11.In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sri Y.Srinivasulu

Reddy’s case, the P.W1 ought to have passed written order in this case before he conducting search and seizure when no one was willing to act as punch witnesses, which he did not do so. There was no evidence that he made any of his efforts in securing the mediators.

12.Besides this, the prosecution did not produce the property i.e., polythene bag containing two cartoon boxes and also the seized property to establish the fact of seizure of the remaining property. Therefore, it throws a doubt as to whether the accused was caught with the contraband as alleged by the prosecution. Since PW1 and PW2 are highly interested witnesses and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon without any corroboration from independent witnesses. In the said circumstances, the entire seizure becomes doubtful. It is settled law that when there is a doubt in the prosecution case, then benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. If it is so, the prosecution has no case at all. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution is miserably failed to establish that the accused is found in possession of 48 bottles of Officers Choice whisky each 180 m.l in cartoon box and 48 bottles of Gold Riband whisky each 180 Ml in another carton box. in the polythene bag and thereby committed the offence under sec. 34(a) A.P. Excise Act.

Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.POINT No.(ii) : In view of my findings in point No.(i), the evidence of prosecution is not free from doubtful circumstances as such, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the 12002(1) LS 242 5 prosecution failed to prove that accused committed the offence punishable u/Sec.

34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14. POINT No.(iii): In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec.34(a) of AP Excise Act and he is accordingly acquitted u/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused, shall stand cancelled. Accused is directed to execute bond for Rs.5000/- u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. to appear before

Appellate court, if any appeal is preferred. M.Os.1 & 2 and unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of November, 2016.

Sd/- Smt. N. SREE LAKSHMI.,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, VIZINAGARAM,

(FAC) SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (Excise)

VIZIANAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW1: Sri P.Sridhar P&E Inspector, Enforcement. - None –

PW2: Sri K.Appala Raju, P&E Head Constable, Enforcement.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:- Ex.P114.06.2014Occurrence report. For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Sample bottle of Officer Choice whisky. M.O.2: Sample bottle of Gold Riband Elite whisky.

Sd/- Smt. N. SREE LAKSHMI.,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, VIZINAGARAM,

(FAC) SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (EXCISE)

VIZIANAGARAM.

// True copy //

Sd/-Smt. N. SREE LAKSHMI.,

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, VIZINAGARAM,

(FAC) SPL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (EXCISE)

VIZIANAGARAM.

6

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE)

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present: Smt N. Sree Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017.

C.C. No.26/2015

(Old C.C.No.140/2015 on the file of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of Class, Vizianagaram)

Between: State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, Vizianagaram...…Complainant

And:

1. Nagabathula Raja, S/o.Babji, aged 27 years, SC Mala by caste, R/o.Satyanarayanapuram village, Opp.of 5thAPSP Quarters, Padmanabham Mandal,Visakhapatnam District. Working as Junior Assistant in MRO’s Office, Merakamudidam.

2. Nagabathula Dravupathi @ Malathi, W/o.Babji, aged 60 years, SC/Mala caste, R/o.Satyanarayanapuram village, Opp.of 5th APSP Quarters, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

3. Bonthu Aparna Jyothi, W/o.Vijayakumar, aged 32 years, SC/Mala caste, R/o.Satyanarayanapuram village, Opp.of 5thAPSP Quarters, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ....… Accused

This case is coming on 27-04-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of

Complainant/State represented by the police, and of Sri K.Ravi Babu,

Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police Station, filed charge sheet against accused 1 to 3 in Crime No.45/2014 for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC, Section 3and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

The brief facts of the Prosecution case are that :

P.W.1 is Defacto complainant and P.W.2 is her father. A.1 is husband of

Defacto complainant and A.2 is mother and A.3 is sister of A.1. The Defacto complainant is resident of 5th APSP Battalion. Her marriage was held on 18.2.2008 with A.1 according to Christian religion customs and traditions. At the time of marriage, they gave dowry of Rs.2 lakhs, one tula gold chain and adapaduchula Lanchanams to A.1 on his demand and on the demand of his parents and sister. Her parents also gave Rs.1 lakh to them for purchase of

Sari samanulu. After marriage she went to in laws house. Her husband has been working as Marketing Supervisor in Reliance Company. After three days of marriage, on the desire of her husband, her father gave Rs.50,000/- by way of fixed deposit. After marriage, she was treated by the accused properly for two years. Later her husband A.1 was addicted to drinking alcohol, gambling and thereby harassed her both physically and mentally in drunken state. He also harassed to bring additional dowry from her parent’s house. Her husband’s parents and sister encouraged him to harass her.

They didn’t provide proper food to her. While so, her husband got job as

Junior Assistant in Revenue department on the death of her father-in-law on compassionate grounds. Later they shifted the family to a rented house situated on opposite of Police Quarters in Satyanarayanapuram. A.1 was addicted to bad vices and thereby started harassment to her with sarcastic words that she is a barren lady and by saying that they would get Rs.10 lakhs dowry if they got performed another marriage to A.1. A.2 and A.3 instigated her husband to beat her indiscriminately. They used to harass her to bring 6 lakhs additional dowry. Though the elders admonished them, there is no change in their attitude. On 25.5.2014 while she was present at her parent’s house for treatment as she was suffering from weakness, her husband came there in drunken state, beat her with hands indiscriminately and when her parents tried to stop him, he abused them and warned them unless she bring Rs.8 lakhs additional dowry, he will kill her.

Basing on the report of P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.127/2014 u/sec.498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was registered by L.W.9 Sub-

Inspector of Police, Denkada Police station and transferred the FIR on the point of jurisdiction. L.W.10 ASI 736 of Women Police station, Vizianagaram re-registered the transferred FIR as case in cr.No.45/2014 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.10 ASI 736 of Women Police station, Vizianagaram examined witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. L.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police, Women Police station,

Vizianagaram verified the investigation of L.W.10 L.W.10 ASI 736 of Women

Police station, Vizianagaram and served notice to accused u/sec.41 (A) Cr.P.C.

After completion of investigation L.W.11 Sub-Inspector of Police, Women

Police station, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet against accused.

02. After perusal of the record, the case was taken on file for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused and numbered as C.C.No.140/2015 on the file of the

Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram.

03. At that stage, in terms of the orders of the Honourable District Court in

P.R.No.59/2015-A dated 27-03-2015 the matter has been transferred to the file of this court and re-numbered as C.C.26/2015. On appearance of the accused copies of case documents have been furnished to the accused under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and charges under section 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, have been framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the trial.

04. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P-1 and P.2. As there is no incriminating material found against the accused in the Prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

05. Heard the arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

06. The learned APP submitted that after filing of charge sheet, the accused and the defacto complainant have compromised the matter, and as such, P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile. Hence, the prosecution could not prove the guilty of the accused for the alleged offence.

07. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the material witnesses turned hostile, as such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

08. Now, the points for determination are: -

1) Whether A-1 to A-3, being husband and relatives of husband of P.W.1, subjected her to cruelty?

2) Whether the A-1 to A-3 demanded the parents of P.W.1 to give dowry at the time of marriage and also demanded her to bring

additional dowry after marriage?

3) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under sections 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

4) To what relief ?

09. Point No. 1 to 3 :-

I have perused the entire evidence and other material available on record. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and

2. P.W.1 is the Defacto complainant. She turned hostile to the case of the

Prosecution stating that A1 is her husband, A.2 is her mother-in-law, A.3 is her sister-in-law and that about 10 years back, her marriage was performed with A.1 and after marriage she joined the conjugal society with A.1 at 5th

APSP Battalion Quarters, Chinthalavalasa. After two years of happy married life, dispute arose between them. She gave report to police. Later with the intervention of the elders, they pacified their disputes and that she did not remember the contents of her report. Ex.P.1 is her signature on report.

10.PW 2, father of P.W.1, corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1. He also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

11.From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, none of the witness deposed against the accused in their evidence and therefore there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to connect the accused for the alleged offence.When a doubt is created about the acts of the accused, it is not safe to convict the accused for the alleged offence. Hence, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offence under Sections 498-A IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt. Point Nos.1 to 3 are answered accordingly against the prosecution.

12. Point No. 4 :- In the result, the A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly, the A-1 to A-3 are acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The accused 1 to 3 are directed to execute bonds for

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each under Section 437-A Cr.P.C., to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-Smt.N.Sreelakshmi

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence

P.W.1 :- N.Beulha Rani- None - P.W.2 :- Manoharam Exhibits Marked For Prosecution: For Defence

Ex.P.1:- Signature of P.W.1 on report. Ex.P.2:- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P.3:- Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Material Objects Marked - Nil -

Sd/-Smt.N.Sreelakshmi

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

PROCEEDINGS THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT, VIZIANAGARAM.

(Section 256, Criminal Procedure Code)

Present:- Smt. N. Sree Lakshmi, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram.

Tuesday, the 2nd day of May, 2017.

C.C.No.235/2016

ComplainantS.V.N.Hotels & Resorts Pvt.Ltd., rep., by its Managing Director, Sri Gudisa Siva Kumar, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, residing at Puligedda vari veedhi, Vizianagaram represented by his GPA holder Sri Tamatapu Gowri Shankar Rao.

AccusedGannamani Venkata Ramarao, S/o.Not known to the complainant, aged about 42 years, Hindu, R/o.Dr.No.8-16-1, Balajinagar, Vizianagaram.

OFFENCE :- Dishonour of Cheque U/s.138 of N.I.Act. Cognizance of offences U/s.142 of N.I.Act.

1. Date of Offence.: 13-07-2013

2. Date of Complaint.: 19-09-2013

3. Date of Hearing.: 02-05-2017

O R D E R

Complainant absent. No representation. NBW is pending against the accused. Complainant did not appear before the Court inspite of conditional order passed by this Court. It shows that complainant is not interested to proceed with the matter. Hence, the complaint is dismissed and the accused is acquitted u/sec.256 Cr.P.C.

Sd/- Smt.N.SreeLakshmi,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

Special Mobile Court,

VIZIANAGARAM.