Sri Srinivasa Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS,CHITTOOR

Calendar Case No. 91 of 2013

Date of Occurrence13-01-2013 Date of Complaint13-01-2013 Date of taken on file15-03-2013 Date of commencement of trial10-01-2014 Date of closure of trial28-02-2014 Date of sentence or order04-03-2014

Name of the complainantState rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Chittoor Traffic Police Station, Chittoor. (Crime No.06/2013).

Name of the accusedFather’s nameAge G.AmbarishS/o Govindappa25 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling No.556, Dasanpura Mandal, Thotdagudda Halli,Bangalore-73.HinduDriver Nagasandra Post.

Nature of offence: Section 304-A of IPC.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Sd/-Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

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

CHITTOOR

PRESENT :SRI Y.SRINIVASA RAO. III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF

MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN.

C.C.No. 91 of 2013

Between

State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Chittoor Traffic police station, Chittoor.

…Complainant

And

G.Ambarish, age 25 years,

S/o Govindappa,

No.556, Thotdagudda Halli,

Nagasandra Post, Dasanpura Mandal,

Bangalore-73. Driver of Maruthi Swift car bearing No.KA 04 MJ 532. … Accused

This case is coming on 28.02.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri M.Damodharam and Smt.Indira, Advocates for the accused, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:-

1.This is a police case and the accused was arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC); in crime no.06/2013 of Chittoor Traffic

Police Station, Chittoor.

2.The contour of the facts of Charge sheet, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant case and emanating from the record, is as follows:-

On 13.01.2013 at about 11.30 a.m., on Bangalore – Tirupati Bye

Pass road, in front of Bans Hotel, Chittoor, accused, being the driver of

Maruthi Swift car bearing registration No.KA 04 MJ 532, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed the cyclist by name

M.Shankar. As a result of this accident, the said Sankar sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head, nose and ear. L.Ws 2 to 4 run to the spot and passed the information to L.W.1/M.Prabhavathi, who is wife of the said M.Shankar and the injured was admitted in

Government Hospital, Chittoor and thereafter he was admitted in

General Hospital, Chennai, and that the said Shankar died on 17.01.2013 at 10.30 a.m., in General Hospital, Chennai. Based on the statement of P.W.1, this case was registered under crime No.06/2013 by L.W.13/S.Abdul Kalam, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and investigated into. L.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of panchayatdars and sent the dead body of the deceased to Madras Medical College, Chennai for autopsy and examined the witnesses by proceeding to the scene of offence.

Accused was arrested on 22.01.2013 at 10.30 a.m., and was sent to the court for judicial custody. After receiving the post mortem certificate and M.V.I Report, L.W.14/T.Balakrishna, Sub Inspector of

Police filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 8 of

Criminal Rules of Practice and he was examined under section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

The accusation was read over and explained to accused in Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.In the trial affordedto both parties, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available against him and he denounced the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Above being the position on record, now the short and significant points, though important, that arise for determination in the present case are, as to,

Whether accused caused death of M.Shankar by driving

Maruthi Swift car bearing No.KA 04 MJ 532 rashly or negli- gently not amounting to culpable homicide? If so, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for offence pun- ishable under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point :-

While the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that the deceased M.Shankar died due to rash or negligent act of accused, the learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution fails to establish the alleged rash or negligent act of accused and also fails to establish the presence of accused as a driver of the car bearing registration

No.KA 04 MJ 532, it is a fit case to let off the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

10.This court will now show the reasons justifying how the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.P.1 is statement of P.W.1. This document is not dated. There is no difference in this document as to the name of accused. The number of the car bearing No.KA 04 MJ 532 was only mentioned in this document. It is mentioned in Ex.P.1 that the car was said to have been driven at high speed and negligently. The ingredients of rashness is absent from the contents of this document.

Although P.W.1 signed on this document in Tamil, no date was put below the signature of P.W.1. But, it was endorsed by P.W.9 that the contents of this document were read over to P.W.1 and he put the date of 13.01.2013. When P.W.1 was examined, she admits that she came to know that the car dashed her husband. Her evidence does not disclose by whom the car was driven at the time of accident. She does not even testify the number of the car. Thus, Ex..1 and the oral evidence of P.W.1 do not disclose the name of driver of the car at the time of accident.

11.Although First Information Report is not an encyclopedia, this document (Ex.P.5) does not disclose the name of accused. It only discloses the number of the car as KA 04 MJ 532.

12.P.W.1 is no other than wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is brother of

P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.2 is as same as P.W.1. This witness knows not how the accident occurred because he is a hear-say witness. The word “negligence” is used by this witness. Despite P.W.2 poses that the car was driven negligently, he does not know by whom the car was driven. It appears that he is made to say that the car was driven negligently. The evidence of P.W.2 is worthless.

13.P.W.3 is an important witness. He says, the accident occurred on 13.01.2013 at 11.30 a.m, in front of Bans Hotel, Chittoor, on

Bangalore – Tirupati road. This part of evidence is corroborated with the contents of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5. Of course, this witness also does not know how the accident occurred is clear from the fact that staff of

Bands Hotel informed him about the accident while he was working in his mango garden at the scene of offence. Ex.P.6/rough sketch does not disclose as if there was a mango garden beside the scene of offence to believe that the presence of P.W.3 soon after the accident.

Of course, P.W.3 also does not disclose by whom the car was driven at the time of accident. The evidence of P.W.3 is also worthless.

14. P.W.4 is a Security Guard in Bans Hotel. He poses to have witnessed the accident on 13.01.2013 at 11.00 p.m. He is alleged to have witnessed that a car dashed the cyclist and the cyclist sustained fatal injury and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor. This witness was declared hostile and that this witness denies his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement/Ex.P.2 and also denies as if accused drove the car rashly or negligently. The evidence of P.W.4 is also insufficient to convict the accused in this case.

15.P.W.5 has a Pawn Shop nearby the scene of offence. He poses to have heard sound and went to the scene and found an injured on the road. He further poses to have witnessed the accident. What he witnessed, by whom the car was driven and how the car was driven are the crucial facts which were faded from the memory of this witness. The evidence of P.W.5 is also insufficient to believe the case of prosecution.

16.The evidence of P.W.6 discloses that he was in the car bearing registration No.KA 04 MJ 532. This witness is very crucial witness to the case of prosecution. P.W.6 specifically stated that accused was the driver of the car. P.W.6 is owner of the car. Despite, he testifies that accused was the driver of the car, this witness is not speaking about the alleged rash or negligent act of accused. For the better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is pertinent to note what P.W.6 testifies. He testifies as infra (in his own words) :

“While we were going from Bangalore to Kanipakam and thereby to Tirumala, the accident occurred in front of Bans

Hotel. I was sleeping in the car. Suddenly, I heard sound. I thus found the accident. A cyclist was injured in the accident and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment.”

The words, “I was sleeping in the car” have some meaning. This court understands, P.W.6 did not witness how the car was driven by accused. This part of evidence of P.W.1, which is on the record, cannot be said to be false for the reason this witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. As this witness heard sound suddenly, there is a reasonable doubt on the face of record that the cyclist may suddenly cross the road and in such a case, it is quite impossible for the driver of the car to avoid accident. Therefore, this reasonable doubt goes in favour of accused.

17.At this stage, it is appropriate to refer Section 304-A of IPC, which reads as follows :

304-A.: Causing death by negligence :- “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

18.Keeping in view the ingredients of this provision and the points discussed supra from the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 6, this court concludes that despite the prosecution succeeds in establishing that accused was the driver of the car at the time of accident, the alleged rash or negligent act of accused is not properly established and therefore the principle of benefit of doubt must be applied in this case.

19.P.W.7 is not direct witness of the accident but he was present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of the deceased. Even as can be seen from Ex.P.3/inquest report and the oral evidence of P.W.9 with support of the Ex.P.9/post mortem certificate, it is clear that the deceased M.Shankar died in the accident held on 13.01.2013 in front of the Bans Hotel. Thus, the death of deceased M.Shankar was also establlished in this case.

20.P.W.8 is Motor Vehicle Inspector. He poses to have inspected the car and he issued Ex.P.4. He opines that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the car. As already observed supra, the rash or negligent act of accused is not established properly and therefore the evidence of P.W.8 and Ex.P.4 loose their significance. P.W.9 is Investigation Officer of this case. He poses to have examined the witnesses and prepared the rough sketch/Ex.P.6.

Ex.P.6 does not disclose any skid marks. When the eye witnesses speak different version than that of their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements as to the rash or negligent act of accused and when there is no reliable evidence on the record to believe accused drove the car either rashly or negligently, it is unsafe to convict the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

21.As a result of evidence discussed supra, this court concludes that the prosecution fails to establish the rash or negligent act of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, accused shall be let off in this case by extending benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

22.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

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

in the open court on this the 04 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

P.W.1: M.Prabhavathi

P.W.2: C.Kumar

P.W.3: M.Mani

P.W.4: T.Nagappa

P.W.5: M.Ekambaram

P.W.6: B.Ramu

P.W.7: P.Devendra Reddy

P.W.8: T.Aslam Pasha, Motor Vehicle Inspector.

P.W.9: S.Abdul Kalam, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W-1.

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

Ex.P.3: Inquest Report.

Ex.P.4: Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report.

Ex.P.5: First Information Report.

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.7: Post Mortem certificate.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

Id/- Y.S.R.

III A.J.M.F.C., CTR.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS,CHITTOOR

Calendar Case No. 661 of 2012

Date of Occurrence27-08-2011 Date of Complaint27-08-2011 Date of taken on file31-12-2011 Date of commencement of trial06-01-2014 Date of closure of trial19-02-2014 Date of sentence or order20-02-2014

Name of the complainantState rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Bangarupalem Police Station, Chittoor. (Crime No.143/2011).

Name of the accusedFather’s nameAge Pallipattu MohanS/o P.Ravi23 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling Mittapalle Village, Mahasamudram Post, Bangarupalem Mandal.HinduEmployee Bangarupalem Mandal.

Nature of offence: Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 338 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

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

CHITTOOR

PRESENT

SRI Y.SRINIVASA RAO, M.A., B.ED., LL.M

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF

FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

C.C.No. 661 of 2012

Between

State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

Bangarupalem Police station, Chittoor.

…Complainant

And

Pallipattu Mohan, age 23 years,

S/o P.Ravi, Chakali by caste,

Mittapalle Village,

Mahasamudram Post,

Bangarupalem Mandal.

Driver of Eicher Van bearing No.TN 01 AC 3525.

… Accused

This case is coming on 19.02.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri A.Muralimohan, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:-

1.This is a police case and the accused was arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 338, 337 of Indian Penal code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC); in crime no.143/2011 of Bangarupalem

Police Station, Chittoor.

2.The contour of the facts of Charge sheet, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant case and emanating from the record, is as follows:-

On 27.08.2011 at about 11.40 p.m, on Palamaner –

Bangarupalem National highway road, near Mogilivenkatagiri turning, accused, being the driver of Eicher van bearing No.TN 01 AC 3525, said to have driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, while proceeding towards Bangarupalem, he lost control over the said vehicle and dashed against the opposite coming 207 luggage van bearing Registration No.AP 03 X 1631, as a result of the accident, the driver cum owner of the luggage van viz., L.W.4/P.Venkatachalapathi, and occupants of the said luggage van viz. L.W.1/A.Govindappa,

L.W.2/N.Papanna and L.W.3/Subramanyam sustained injuries and they were admitted in Government Hospital, Bangarupalem for treatment. Based upon the statement of L.W.1/A.Govindappa, this case was registered by L.W.8/Sri D.Munaswamy, Probation Sub

Inspector of Police and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.8/Sri D.Munaswamy examined L.Ws 1 to 6 and recorded their statements under Section of 161(3) Cr.P.C, and he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and he arrested the accused on 13.09.2011 and sent him to court for judicial custody.

Further investigation was done by L.W.9/Sri G.Sankar Mallaiah, Sub

Inspector of Police. L.W.7/Dr.Ashwini, Civil Assistant Surgeon treated the injured and she issued wound certificate. After completion of investigation, L.W.9/Sri G.Sankar Mallaiah, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 8 of

Criminal Rules of Practice and he was examined under section 251 of

Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 337 and 338 of

IPC. The accusation was read over and explained to accused in

Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.In the trial affordedto both parties, on behalf of the prosecution side, P.Ws 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available against him and he denounced the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Above being the position on record, now the short and significant points, though important, that arise for determination in the present case are, as to,

Whether accused caused grievous hurt to P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and P.W.5 by driving the Eicher van bearing

No.TN 01 AC 3525 so rashly or negligently endangering

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5? If so, whether the prose- cution proved the guilt of accused for offence punish- able under sections 337 and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point :-

The contention of the prosecution is such that the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5 is suffice to convict the accused for the alleged offence under Section 337 and 338 of IPC as their evidence show that accused drove the crime vehicle in fast manner and dashed

P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5. It is further contended by the prosecution that non-examination of L.W.7/Dr.Ashwini, Civil Assistant Surgeon is not fatal to the case of prosecution as she was bed-ridden and she is unable to move. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argues that to attract either Section 337 or Section 338 of IPC, the prosecution must establish the rash or negligent act of accused and further argued that mere stating that accused drove the crime vehicle in fast manner is not sufficient to convict the accused.

10.It is the case of prosecution that accused is said to have driven the Eicher Van bearing registration No.TN 01 AC 3525 rashly or negligently and dashed the opposite vehicle i.e., Luggage Van bearing registration No.AP 03 X 1631 and that this accident was said to have been occurred on 27.08.2011 at 11.40 p.m, on Palamaner –

Bangarupalem National Highway road, near Mogili Venkatagiri turning.

11.I will now show the reasons justifying that the prosecution fails to establish that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

12.Ex.P.1 is statement of P.W.5. P.W.5 is defacto complainant.

Ex.P.1 is dated 28.08.2011. As can be seen from the First Information

Report/Ex.P.2, the accident is alleged to have been occurred on 27.08.2011 at 11.40 p.m., near Andareddipalli, on Bangarupalem –

Palamaner NH-4 road. Neither Ex.P.1/statement of P.W.5 nor

Ex.P.2/First Information Report disclosed the name of accused. The entry in column No.7 of Ex.P.2 , which shows as “driver of the Eicher van bearing Registration No.TN 01 A 3525” is a potent factor showing that P.W.5 was not aware of the name of the accused.

13.Ex.P.3 is rough sketch. It shows the width of the road is 22 feet.

No skid marks are noted in the rough sketch by the Investigation

Officer. As can be seen under Section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code, the process of investigation shall contain the following steps :

1) The Officer-in-charge of the police station shall proceed to scene of offence in person.

2) The Investigation Officer must investigate the facts and circumstances of the case.

3) If necessary, the Investigation Officer must take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender.

14.I will now show the reasons how the process of investigation done by P.W.6/D.Munaswamy, Probation Sub Inspector of Police,

Bangarupalem. and L.W.9/Sri G.Sankara Mallaiah, Sub Inspector of

Police, Bangarupalem Police Station is not according to the procedure contemplated under Section 157 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

15.P.W.6/D.Munaswamy, Probation Sub Inspector of Police,

Bangarupalem admits in the cross examination as follows (in his own words) :

“It is true that as per Ex.P.1. the particulars of the driver of crime vehicle were not known including the name of the driver.

Similarly, no witness stated the name of the driver of the crime vehicle nor stated that they would identify the driver.” P.W.6 further admits that “It is true owner of the vehicle/P.W.4 is not direct witness of the accident. It is true that the accident occurred in midnight.”

16. From these crucial admissions of P.W.6, it appears that P.W.6 blindly believed on P.W.4 and figured the accused as driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.6 knows that P.W.4 is not direct witness of the accident to say whether accused was the driver of the Eicher van at the time of accident or not. P.W.6 knowingly figured the accused as driver of the Eicher van without taking measures to discover who was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, the procedure adopted by P.W.6 is totally contra to the procedure contemplated under Section 157 of Cr.P.C.

17.Now, it is appropriate to see Section 338 of IPC, which reads as follows :

Section 338 : Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life

or personal safety of others :- Whoever caused hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

18.No doubt, as can be seen from the wound certificates of P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and P.W.5, which are marked as Exs.P.4 to P.7, P.W.5 sustained simple injuries, P.W.1 sustained simple injuries, P.W.2 sustained simple injuries and P.W.3 sustained grievous injuries in the accident.

The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5, who are direct witnesses of the accident, shows that the accident occurred on 27.08.2011 at 11.40 p.m. Although it is believable that P.W.1 to

P.W.3 and P.W.5 sustained the above said injuries in the above said accident, they do not know the driver of the crime vehicle is clear from the admission of P.W.6, who stated that no witness stated the name of the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.6 further admitted that these witnesses did not even state before him as if they would identify the driver of the crime vehicle. Admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted in this case to find out the accused. Therefore, nevertheless P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5 pretend as if accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, the said fact is not acceptable for the reason that P.W.6 admits that these witnesses did not state before him as if accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident.

19.P.W.1 to P.W.5 know not who is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident is clear from the fact their Section 161

Cr.P.C statements do not reflect the name of accused. This observation is further fortified for another reason that P.W.4, who is owner of the crime vehicle, admits that he cannot say to whom one Venkatesh entrusted the said vehicle on the date of accident. As per the version of P.W.4, the said crime vehicle is being maintained by one Venkatesh, who is nephew of P.W.4. The said Venkatesh was not cited as a witness in this case. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 is worthless to hold that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

20.I will now show another reason justifying the essential ingredients of rash or negligent act of accused is not properly established.

21.As is admitted by the Investigation Officer/P.W.6, P.W.1 to

P.W.5 did not know by whom the crime vehicle was driven at the time of the accident. However, what all P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.5 testified is that, the van was driven in “fast manner”. It is well-settled law that the word “fast” does not bespeak either rash or negligent act of accused. Thus, the rash or negligent act of accused is absent in this case.

22.As a result of the evidence discussed supra, this court is in no doubt to conclude that the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of accused for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered in the negative.

23.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 377 and 338 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20 th day of February, 2014.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

P.W.1: N.Papanna

P.W.2: N.Subramanyam

P.W.3: P.Venkatachalapathi

P.W.4: Thangadi Subba Rao.

P.W.5: Sri D.Munaswamy, Sub Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W-1.

Ex.P.2: First Information Report.

Ex.P.3: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.4: Wound certificate of P.W.5.

Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

Ex.P.6: Wound certificate of P.W.2.

Ex.P.7: Wound certificate of P.W.3.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

Id/- Y.S.R.

III A.J.M.F.C., CTR.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS,CHITTOOR

Calendar Case No. 714 of 2012

Date of Occurrence21-05-2012 Date of Complaint22-05-2012 Date of taken on file21-06-2012 Date of commencement of trial25-02-2014 Date of closure of trial03-03-2014 Date of sentence or order06-03-2014

Name of the complainantState rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, N.R.Pet Police Station, Chittoor. (Crime No.15/2012).

Name of the accusedFather’s nameAge

1. VaraprasadS/o Gurubhushan20 years

2. GandhiS/o Gurubhushan19 years

3. GurubhushanS/o Kannaiah50 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling A.1 to A.3 are residents of Chittoor Mandal.A.1 to A.3 are A.1 to A.3 are Diguvakandriga HindusCoolies Village.

Nature of offence: Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

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

CHITTOOR

PRESENT :SRI Y.SRINIVASA RAO. III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF

MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN.

C.C.No. 714 of 2012

Between

State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

N.R.Pet police station, Chittoor.

…Complainant

And

1. Varaprasad, age 20 years, S/o Gurubhushan.

2. Gandhi, age 19 years, S/o Gurubhushan.

3. Gurubhushan, age 50 years, S/o Kannaiah.

All are residents of Diguvakandriga Village.

… Accused

This case is coming on 03.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri G.B.Prasanna, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:-

1.This is a police case and the accused were arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC); in crime no.15/2012 of N.R.Pet

Police Station, Chittoor.

2.The contour of the facts of Charge sheet, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant case and emanating from the record, is as follows:-

On 21.05.2012, at 9.30 p.m., at Diguva Kandiga village, Chittoor

Mandal, A.1 to A.3 are said to have voluntarily caused hurt to

L.W.1/K.Krishnan @ Krishnudu, in furtherance of common intention of one another, by means of an iron rod and stones, and that A.1 is said to have beaten L.W.2/Mahesh and also cut on the back of

L.W.1/K.Krishnan with blade and caused bleeding injuries. Based on the satement of L.W.1/K.Krishnan, L.W.8/Sri G.Anjappa, Head

Constable (HC 1898), N.R.Pet Police Station registered this case under crime No.15/2012 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into, and that he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. A.1 to A.3 were arrested by L.W.9/Sri B.Suneel

Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police on 30.05.2013 and they were sent to court for judicial custody. After receiving wound certificate of the injured from L.W.7/Dr.V.Vinayak, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Chittoor and after completion of investigation, L.W.9/B.Sunil Kumar filed charge sheet in this case. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of A.1 to A.3, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and

Rule 8 of Criminal Rules of Practice and they were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Charge has been framed, read over and explained to A.1 to A.3 in Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same,

A.1 to A.3 pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.In the trial affordedto both parties, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available against them and they denounced the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Above being the position on record, now the short and significant points, though important, that arise for determination in the present case are, as to,

Whether A.1 to A.3, in furtherance of common intention, vol- untarily caused hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2 by means of iron rod and stones, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC? If so, whether the prose- cution established the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the same beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point :-

It is the case of prosecution that A.1 to A.3, in furtherance of common intention, are said to have voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2 by means of iron rod, stones and that A.1 is said to have caused hurt to P.W.2 by means of a blade and this incident is said to have taken place on 21.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m, at Digurvakandriga village.

10.Ex.P.5/First Information Report discloses the names of A.1 to A.3 and it was mentioned that the alleged offence was taken place on 21.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m.

11.The learned defence counsel argues that this case is counter blast to the case in C.C.No.415/2012 and argued that the prosecution totally fails to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 as the material witnesses turned hostile.

12.Although Ex.P.1/statement of P.W.1 shows as if A.1 to A.3 voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.Ws 1 to 3 turned hostile and they denied their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C statements which are marked as Ex.P.2 to P.4 respectively. Besides that, P.W.1 denies

Ex.P.1/statement of P.W.1.

13. It is important to note that P.Ws 1 to 3 clearly stated that there was a galata on 21.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m., and they suspected A.1 to

A.3. It is well-settled law, suspicion is no legal proof in criminal justice. No witness stated as if A.1 to A.3 voluntarily caused hurt to

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and therefore Ex.P.6/rough sketch and wound certificate of P.W.1 loose their significance.

14.From the above observations, this court concludes that the essential ingredients of Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC are absent in this case. Thus, the prosecution fails to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the same beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

15.In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

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

in the open court on this the 06 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

P.W.1: K.Krishnan @ Krishnudu

P.W.2: Mahesh

P.W.3: Suresh

P.W.4: B.Suneel Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W-1.

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5: First Information Report.

Ex.P.6: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.7: Wound certificate.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

Id/- Y.S.R.

III A.J.M.F.C., CTR.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS,CHITTOOR

Calendar Case No. 715 of 2012

Date of Occurrence21-05-2012 Date of Complaint22-05-2012 Date of taken on file21-06-2012 Date of commencement of trial25-02-2014 Date of closure of trial03-03-2014 Date of sentence or order06-03-2014

Name of the complainantState rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, N.R.Pet Police Station, Chittoor. (Crime No.16/2012).

Name of the accusedFather’s nameAge

1. K.Krishnan @ KrishnuduS/o Amasaiah57 years

2. MaheshS/o Krishnan24 years

3. SureshS/o Krishnan20 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling A.1 to A.3 are residents of Chittoor Mandal.A.1 to A.3 are A.1 to A.3 are Diguvakandriga HindusCoolies Village.

Nature of offence: Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Sd/-Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

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

CHITTOOR

PRESENT :SRI Y.SRINIVASA RAO. III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF

MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN.

C.C.No. 715 of 2012

Between

State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

N.R.Pet police station, Chittoor.

…Complainant

And

1. K.Krishnan @ Krishnudu, age 57 years,

S/o Amasaiah.

2. Mahesh, age 24 years, S/o Krishnan.

3. Suresh, age 20 years, S/o Krishnan.

All are residents of Diguvakandriga Village.

… Accused

This case is coming on 03.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri A.Jyothiram, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:-

1.This is a police case and the accused were arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC); in crime no.16/2012 of N.R.Pet

Police Station, Chittoor.

2.The contour of the facts of Charge sheet, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant case and emanating from the record, is as follows:-

On 21.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m, at Diguvakandriga Village, A.1 to

A.3 are said to have voluntarily caused hurt to L.W.1/Bujji by means of a stone for which L.W.1 sustained simple injury on his right hand.

Based on the statement of L.W.1, L.W.8/G.Anjappa, HC 1898 of

N.R.Pet police station registered this case under crime No.16/2012 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, L.W.8 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

L.W.7/Dr.V.Vinayak, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Chittoor gave treatment to the injured and issued wound certificate. L.W.9/B.Sunil Kumar, Sub

Inpsector of Police arrested A.1 to A.3 on 30.05.2012 and sent them to court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation, L.W.9 filed charge sheet. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.On appearance of A.1 to A.3, copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and

Rule 8 of Criminal Rules of Practice and they were examined under section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC. Charge has been framed, read over and explained to A.1 to A.3 in Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same,

A.1 to A.3 pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.In the trial affordedto both parties, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available against them and they denounced the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Above being the position on record, now the short and significant points, though important, that arise for determination in the present case are, as to,

Whether A.1 to A.3, in furtherance of common intention, vol- untarily caused hurt to P.W.1 by means of iron a stone, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC? If so, whether the prosecution established the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the same beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point :-

Although it is the case of prosecution that A.1 to A.3, in furtherance of common intention, are said to have caused hurt to

P.W.1 by means of stone on 21.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m., at

Diguvakandriga village, the material witnesses did not support to the case of prosecution. It is the main infirmity to the case of prosecution.

P.Ws 1 to 4 turned hostile. These witnesses denied their respective

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements which are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.5 respectively. The contents of Ex.P.1/statement of P.W.1 were denied by P.W.1. P.W.1 is injured in this case. Ex.P.8/wound certificate of

P.W.1 shows that he sustained simple injury on his right hand but

P.W.1 testifies that he does not know who beat him.

10.What all P.W.1 to P.W.4 testified is that as there was galata on 21.05.2012 at 9.30 p.m., they suspected A.1 to A.3. It is needless to say that suspicion however strong is no legal proof. Therefore, the oral evidence of Investigation Officer/ P.W.5 and Ex.P.6/First

Information Report, Ex.P.7/rough sketch and Ex.P.8/wound certificate loose their significance. The essential ingredients of Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC are absent in this case.

11.For the above reasons, this court concludes that the prosecution totally fails to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.3 for the offence under

Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered accordingly.

12.In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of A.1 to A.3 shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

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

in the open court on this the 06 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

P.W.1: Bujji

P.W.2: Gurubhushan

P.W.3: Varaprasad

P.W.4: Gandhi

P.W.5: B.Sunil Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W-1.

Ex.P.2: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.6: First Information Report.

Ex.P.7: Wound certificate.

Ex.P.8: Wound certificate.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

Id/- Y.S.R.

III A.J.M.F.C., CTR.

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

I CLASS,CHITTOOR

Calendar Case No. 331 of 2012

Date of Occurrence25-05-2011 Date of Complaint26-05-2011 Date of taken on file10-06-2011 Date of commencement of trial24-02-2014 Date of closure of trial03-03-2014 Date of sentence or order06-03-2014

Name of the complainantState rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, N.R.Pet Police Station, Chittoor. (Crime No.13/2011).

Name of the accusedFather’s nameAge M.Giri BabuS/o M.Ramamurthy23 years

VillageMandalReligionCalling Resident of T.Vepanapalli Chittoor Mandal.Accused is HinduAccused is Village. (Now employee. residing at Chamanthipuram of Chittoor Town).

Nature of offence: Section 324 of IPC.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

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

CHITTOOR

PRESENT :SRI Y.SRINIVASA RAO. III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF

MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN.

C.C.No. 331 of 2012

Between

State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police,

N.R.Pet police station, Chittoor.

…Complainant

And

M.Giribabu, age 23 years,

S/o M.Ramamurthy, R/o T.Vepanapalli Village,

Chittoor Mandal. (Now residing at Chamanthipuram of Chittoor town. … Accused

This case is coming on 03.03.2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri R.Chandrasekhar, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over to this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T:-

1.This is a police case and the accused was arraigned for the offence punishable under Section 324 of Indian Penal code, 1860 (herein after referred as IPC); in crime no.13/2011 of N.R.Pet Police

Station, Chittoor.

2.The contour of the facts of Charge sheet, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant case and emanating from the record, is as follows:-

On 25.05.2011 at 6.00 p.m, at Chinthalagunta cross, accused is said to have voluntarily caused hurt to L.W.1/E.Rajani by means of a stick. Based on the statement of L.W.1/E.Rajani, L.W.7/M.Manohar,

Assistant Sub Inspector of N.R.Pet police station registered this case under crime No.13/2011 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. L.W.6/Dr.C.Hariprasad,

Civil Assistant Surgeon gave treatment to L.W.1 and issued wound certificate. L.W.8/D.Zikriya, Sub Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 08.06.2011 and sent him to court for judicial custody and he filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. Hence, the charge.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code and Rule 8 of

Criminal Rules of Practice and he was examined under section 239 of

Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Section 324 of IPC.

Charge has been framed, read over and explained to accused in

Telugu. On understanding the contents of the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.In the trial affordedto both parties, on behalf of the prosecution,

P.Ws 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating material available against him and he denounced the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Above being the position on record, now the short and significant points, though important, that arise for determination in the present case are, as to,

Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.1 by means of a stick ? If so, whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point :-

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues that although the material witnesses turned hostile, Ex.P.1/statement of P.W.1 is to be taken into consideration by the court as P.W.1 admits the same.

10.The learned defence counsel argues that the prosecution witnesses i.e., P.Ws 1 to 4 turned hostile and the witnesses clearly stated that the accused did not beat P.W.1 and therefore accused must be acquitted in this case.

11.No doubt, it is true the statement of P.W.1 was marked as

Ex.P.1. But, P.W.1 clearly admitted that accused did not beat him.

What all this witness stated is that on 25.05.2011 at 6.00 p.m, at

Chinthalagunta cross, there was a little altercation between him and accused and the accused did not beat him. Because of this admission of P.W.1, Ex.P.1/statement of P.W.1 looses its significance. The other witnesses namely P.W.2 and P.W.3 also clearly admitted that accused did beat P.W.1. No valid grounds are elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor to trust the case of prosecution. P.W.1 to P.W.4 denied their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C statements which were marked as

Exs.P.2 to P.5 respectively.

12.When the prosecution witnesses (P.Ws 1 to 4) admit that accused did not beat P.W.1, the oral evidence of P.W.5, Ex.P.6/First

Information Report, Ex.P.7/Rough sketch and Ex.P.8/Wound certificate of P.W.1 loose their significance. Thus, the essential ingredients of

Section 324 of IPC are absent in this case.

13.For the above reasons, this court holds that the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 324 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is answered in the negative.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Section 324 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bailbonds of accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

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

in the open court on this the 06 th day of March, 2014.

Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao.

III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE : Nil

P.W.1: E.Rajini

P.W.2: Armugam

P.W.3: Sampath @ Santosh

P.W.4: E.Thomas

P.W.5: Sri D.Zikriya, Sub Inspector of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Statement of P.W-1.

Ex.P.2: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5: Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.6: First Information Report.

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.8: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

Id/- Y.S.R.

III A.J.M.F.C., CTR.