Sudarshi Anusha

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

APKU020070922022

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

Present:-Smt.S.ANUSHA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool Cum

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.4822/2022

Between:

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Kurnool Taluka P.S. …Complainant

- Versus

1. D. Chinna Krishna Reddy @ Yeddulamala Krishna Reddy, S/o Y.Seetharami Reddy, age 49 yrs, H.No.2-109-A, Ulchala village, Kurnool Mandal owner of the Tractor engine bearing No. AP 21 TZ 7225 and Bengal gram Harvesting machine.

2. Boya Krishna, age 30 yrs. s/o B.Nagesh H.No. 3-103 B Ulchala village Kurnool Mandal driver of the tractor and operator Bengal gram Harvesting machine,

3. Boya Gopal, age 28 yrs, s/o B.Sunkanna H.No.3-23, Ulchala village, Kurnool Mandal Asst. driver and operator of Bengal gram machine …Accused no.1 to 3 1

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

This case came before me on 24-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

Venugopal Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.46/2022 for the offence punishable under Section.304(A) of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as

IPC).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

i. On 25.01.2022 the deceased Boya Moulali went to the coolie work with harvest machine as the tractor engine attached with Bengal gram harvest machine along with A2 and A3, A2 is the driver of tractor and operator of harvesting machine, A3 is second driver and operator.

They reached the field of Golla Giddied. Boya Krishna kept the tractor in the field of Golla Giddaiah and went to his house to take break fast, in his absence the A2, A3 was look after the harvest machine. A3 asked the deceased Moulali to remove the greenish Bengal gram from the machine, while he was cleaning the harvest machine inner side with his hand A3 switched on the machine without contact the deceased Moulali, for which the deceased tied a jeans cloth to his hand for cleaning it was implicate in the machine next his head and body implicate into the machine, the accused A2 with his negligence act to leave the machine without saying any instructions to A3. The accused A1 maintained the harvest machine without any precaution measure instruments while the machine running.

iiLW-12 (MVI) inspected the crime vehicle has opined that the ac- cident occurred not due to mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

2

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

iii. LW-13. (Professor) conducted autopsy over dead body of the deceased has opined that the death due to "Laceration of Brain associ- ated with Haemorrhagic Shock resulting from multiple antemortem in- juries".

iii. LW-14 (HC 784) on receiving written complaint of LW-1 regis- tered this case and investigated into. He held inquest over dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW-1 to LW-4 and LWs 9 to 11 on 25.01.2022 and sent the dead body for P.M. examination. Then he exam- ined LW 5 to 8. He sent a requisition to LW-12 for inspection of the crime vehicle. He arrested the accused on 27.01.2022 and served notice U/s 41 (A) Cr.P.C with instruction that they should attend the court whenever they received summons from the Hon'ble Court iv. LW-15 (S.I) verifies the investigation of LW-14 after obtained

P.M Report and M.V.I report from concerned authorities. On completion of the investigation, LW-15 filed charge sheet in this case.

3.On 14.12.2022 This Court took cognizance on file against the ac- cused no.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304(A) of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 18.08.2023. The accused no.1 to 3 were examined under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC, putting forth the substance of the accusation made against them in Telugu language for which they denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined LWs 1 to 8, 10, 14 as PWs.1 to 10 (respectively) and got marked exhibits P1 to P16. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 10, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the LW9/U.Vidya Sagar, 3

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

LW11/B.Hanumanthu, LW12/Raja Gopal, LW13/Dr.R.Shankar, LW15/

S.Laxmi Narayana.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence. On 16.04.2026, the accused no.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language for which the accused denied their guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

(i) “Whether the prosecution has able to prove the rash or negligence of accused no.1 to 3 beyond reasonable doubt”?

(ii) “Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the accused u/sec.304(A) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10.The investigation in this case commenced on the report of

PW1/B.Ramudu which is marked as Ex.P11. The brief contents of the report are that the case of prosecution that on 25.01.2022 the deceased

Boya Moulali went to the coolie work with harvest machine as the tractor engine attached with Bengal gram harvest machine along with two A2 and A3. They reached the field of Golla Giddied. Boya Krishna kept the tractor in the field of Golla Giddaiah and went to his house to take break fast, in his absence the A2, A3 was look after the harvest machine. A3 asked the deceased Moulali to remove the greenish Bengal gram from the machine, while he was cleaning the harvest machine inner side with his hand A3 switched on the machine without contact the deceased

Moulali, and due to act of with his negligence to leave the machine 4

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

without saying any instructions to A3, the accused A1 maintained the harvest machine without any precaution measure instruments while the machine running.

11.The learned APP submitted his arguments stating that the case may be decided on merits.

12. The learned counsel for the accused contend that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement and identity of accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:-

13.To bring home the guilt of rash or negligent driving of accused, the following ingredients should be proved by the prosecution.

(i) That there is a death of a person

(ii) That the deceased died due to accident caused by the offending vehicle driven by accused.

(iii) That the act of the accused must not amount to culpable homicide.

14.Before delving deep into the case, it is apposite to look into the relevant section involved in the present case.

Sec.304(A) IPC: 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.

Prosecution Witnesses:

15. The evidence of PW1 the defacto complainant deposed that About four years ago, on one day while he was present in his fields, he received information from known person stating that the deceased was died in the fields of Golla Giddaiah. He came to know that the deceased was died in 5

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

the machine on the spot. Later, the deceased was brought dead to his home suffer sustained bleeding injuries over his head. He deposed that he do not know the manner of the accident and who caused the accident.

Further deposed that police obtained his signature on empty white paper and he identified his signature on the report. Further stated that police did not examine him and recorded his statement.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW2 deposed that about three years ago, on one day while she was attended to her works, the villagers called her and informed her that the deceased was met with an accident and shifted him to her house. Further deposed that the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head but she deposed that she do not know the manner of the accident and who caused the accident. Further stated that police did not examine her and recorded her statement.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW3 deposed that he do not know anything about this case and further stated that police examined him and recorded his statement.

18.The evidence of PW4 and PW5 deposed that about few years ago, on one day they came to know that deceased met with an accident, except that they do not know anything about this case and police never examined them and recorded their statements at any point of time.

19. Coming to the evidence of PW6 to PW8 deposed that about three years ago, they came to know that deceased was died. Except that they do not know anything about this case and cause for the death of deceased. Further stated that police did not examined them and recorded their statements at any point of time.

20. Coming to the evidence of PW9 deposed that About four years ago, on one day police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at Ulchala Village, near the scene of offence and prepared inquest report 6

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

in his presence and he put his signature on it. Witness identified his signature on the inquest report.

21. Coming to the evidence of PW10/investigation officer goes that on 25- 01-2022 at about 11.30 hours while he was present in Kurnool Taluk PS he have received written complaint from PW-1. Basing on the complaint he registered a case in Cr.No.46/2022 U/s.304-A IPC and forwarded the original copy of FIR to the Hon’ble court and to all concerned officers.

Later, he examined PW-1 in the station and recorded the statement. On the same day he proceeded to scene of offence situated at Ulchala

Village and secured the presence of LWS.1 to 4 and recorded their statements and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW-9, LW-9 and 11 and prepared inquest report.

Later he forwarded the deceased dead body to the LW-13/Dr.R.Shankar for the purpose of conducting autopsy. Later he examined the scene of offence and prepared rough of scene of offence. Ex.P-14 is the rough sketch of scene of offence and he found one crime vehicle bearing

No.AP21PZ7225 and shifted the crime vehicle to the police station and send requisition to LW-12/MVI for inspection of crime vehicle. Later he served Sec.41 (A) Cr.PC notice to the accused. On 29-01-2022 he handed over to entire case file to LW-15/SI of police, he verified the investigation and received the MVI report. Ex.P-15 is the MVI report. LW5 received the PM report of the deceased and after completion of entire investigation LW-15 laid charge sheet against the accused.

22. During the cross examination the investigation officer deposed that the registration number stated by him is belongs to tractor. He deposed that tractor has not committed any offence as per his investigation and charge sheet. He deposed that as per the prosecution the alleged 7

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

incident was occurred due to one machinery but the details of the said machinery is not mentioned. He deposed that they have not seized any blood stained clothes in the said machine. He denied the suggestion that deceased died due to fell down in some other incident and by obtaining the signature of PW-1 in the white paper they prepared false report against the accused and filed this case against them. He denied the suggestion that accused is no way concerned with the present case. He denied the suggestion that he have obtained signature of the panchayatdars on the white paper and prepared the same in the station.

He denied the suggestion that he have not recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the same in the Police station. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the scene of offence and never prepared rough sketch and he conducted only table investigation.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS:

23. In view of rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove the charge framed under section 304 A of IPC. As already discussed above, to attract the same rash and negligent of the accused is to be proved. While summoning up the entire evidence as discussed above, from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is observed that they both are not the eye witnesses to the manner of the accident and it shows that they has no personal knowledge of the accident. Further they cannot identify the driver and also cannot speak about the rash or negligence of the driver. Hence, there evidence established only the factum of accident and death, but not the culpability of the accused.

24. Next coming to the evidence of PW3,it is clear that he has no personal knowledge about the case and he doesn't witness the accident 8

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

and is unaware of the manner of the accident occurred and also could not identify the accused. Hence, PW3 did not support the prosecution on any manner of the accident as well as identity of the accused.

25. Further from the evidence of PW4 and PW5 though they deposed that they came to know about the accident but did not support the prosecution case and simply stated that he do not know anything further about this case and turned hostile for the reasons best known to him.

26. While going through the evidence of PW6 to PW8 it shows that they also do not have personal knowledge about the accident and they are hearsay witness and did not support the prosecution version.

27. The evidence of PW9 is with regard to the inquest and though he deposed that Police prepared inquest in their presence but the did not depose about the cause of death of the deceased.

28. Further from the evidence of the investigation officer, he admits the contradiction. Further there is no direct evidence linking the accused to driving and about the surrender of the accused. He also admitted that the accident was not due to the tractor but the tractor registration number is mentioned. Further he admitted that he has not mentioned the details of the machinery in which the accident was occurred. Hence there appears some contradictions and discrepancies from the evidence of PW1 to

PW9.

29. Hence it shows that the prosecution has failed to establish the two cardinal ingredients of section 304 A of the IPC: That is the identity of the accused no. 1 to 3 as the driver of the crime vehicle and who operated the crime vehicle and who caused the accident and further the rash or negligent act on the part of the accused no. 1 to 3.

30. Next absence of the eye witness in this case : Pw1 being the defacto complainant, categorically deposed that he do not know the manner of 9

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

the accident and it shows that he is hearsay witness. Further they cannot say on whose fault the accident occurred and also categorically deposed that he do not know the accused. So it is clear that none of the witnesses identified the accused.

31. Hence, as the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version, without any corroborating evidence, conviction cannot be ordered basing on the sole testimony of the investigation officer. It is not a rule of prudence to convict the accused without any corroborating evidence. At this juncture , this court relied on the

Judgment. At this stage this Court would like to refer the judgment of

Hon’ble (Apex court) in Crl.Appeal No.3189-3190 of 2023 dated

09.05.2025 in “Renuka Prasad (Vs) The State represented by

Assistant Superintendent of Police” held that :

“The only view that comes forth is that the prosecution completely failed to prove the allegations raised and charged against each of the accused, more by reason of all the witnesses paraded before Court, at the trial, having turned hostile for the reasons unknown.

Whatever be the reason behind such hostility, it cannot result in a conviction, based on the testimony of the Investigating Officer which is founded only on

Section 161 statements and voluntary statements of accused.”

Hence, relying upon the investigation officer when other witnesses turned hostile is not proper. Hence in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, this court has no hesitation to hold that accused is found not guilty and there is no incriminating and corroborated evidence against him.

10

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

32. Thus viewed from any angle, it can be said that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

33. In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under sec.304(A) of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same Under sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the Court.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: PW1: B.Ramudu PW2: B.Varalakshmi PW3: B.Muntanna PW4: B.Kalanna PW5: B.Suresh PW6: B.Bala Maddilety PW7: G.Surendra PW8: B.Sivasankarudu PW9: B.Gangadhar PW10: N.Prakash Babu

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 11

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5 Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6 Ex.P8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7 Ex.P9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-8 Ex.P10: Signature on inquest report Ex.P11: Written report Ex.P12: First Information Report Ex.P13: Inquest report Ex.P14: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P15: MVI report Ex.P16: PM report

For Defence: NIL Material objects NIL

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

12

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.4822/2022

1. Date of Offence: 25-01-2022

2. Date of Complaint or report: 25-01-2022

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice served

4. Date of release of the accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 10-11-2025

6. Date of close of trial: 16-04-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 30-04-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any:

ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka P.S in Crime No.46/2022

1. D. Chinna Krishna Reddy @ Yeddulamala Krishna Accused Reddy, S/o Y.Seetharami Reddy, age 49 yrs, H.No.2-109-A, Ulchala village, Kurnool Mandal owner of the Tractor engine bearing No. AP 21 TZ 7225 and Bengal gram Harvesting machine.

2. Boya Krishna, age 30 yrs. s/o B.Nagesh H.No. 3-103 B Ulchala village Kurnool Mandal driver of the tractor and operator Bengal gram Harvesting machine,

3. Boya Gopal, age 28 yrs, s/o B.Sunkanna H.No.3-23, Ulchala village, Kurnool Mandal Asst. driver and operator of Bengal gram machine Offence : Causing death by negligence

Section of Law: U/s.304(A) of IPC 13

CC No.4822/2022 dt:30.04.2026

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused no.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under sec.304(A) of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the same Under sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the Court.

Sd/- S.AnushaSd/-

S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

14

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

APKU020028352023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

Present:-Smt.S.ANUSHA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool Cum

III Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.1684/2023

Between:

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Kurnool Taluka P.S. …Complainant

-Vs-

Nikki Thirupati Jagadeesh, age 28 years, S/o Nanchari, Occupation:Kankara mission R/o Musalamadugu village, Kottapalli mandal, Nandyal District Now at Kadapa Town Driver of Kankara mission bearing No.AP26 BR 6362…Accused

This case came before me on 24-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

M.Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.481/2022 for the offence 1

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

punishable under Section.304(A) of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as

IPC).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

i. The deceased/Saidula Murahari Rao was worked as a lorry driver cum cleaner for their livelihood and during the incident he was working under the Thirupathi Reddy road construction work and going on from Pasupalavillage to Sudireddy palli village. On 14.08.2022 while construction work in Pasupala village which is situated near Pagidyala

Peddamma temple, the deceased went to pasupala village on his personal work, after completion his work while returning to his village on the way when he reached near Peddamma temple while construction work was going on the accused who is the driver of Cement kankara miller bearing No.AP-26-BR-6362 unloaded the cement concrete at construction place, at that time the accused while taking back the vehicle without observing the back drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner dashed against the deceased who was going on the way towards

Nandanapalli village. As a result of which the back tire of the mission passed away on the head of the deceased after falling in the ground, due to which the deceased was died on the spot.

ii Basing on the report of the complainant case is registered in

Cr.No.481/2022 u/s 304 (A) of IPC of Kurnool Taluk U.P.S iii. During the course of the Investigation LW-14 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in between 09.00 AM to 11.30 hrs in the presence of inquest panchayathdars LWs 7 to 9 and examined the LWs 1 to 5 and recorded their statements U/s 161(3) Cr.Pc.

iv. During the course of the investigation LW-14 visited the scene of offence and examined LW-6 and recorded statement and also examined scene of offence and drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence.

2

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

v. During the course of investigation on 12.04.2023 LW-15 took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW-14 and found it on correct lines.

vi. On 25.04.2023 at 10.00 hrs the accused surrendered before

LW-15 along with crime vehicle, then LW-15 collected the panchayatdars i.e LWs 10 & 11 and interrogated the accused in the presence of LWs 10 & 11 and the accused admitted the offence. Hence LW-15 served 41 (A)

Cr.Pc notice to the accused.

vi. LW-12 is the Asst. Motor vehicle Inspector Kurnool inspected the crime vehicle and issued M.V.I report and opined that "the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle".

vii. LW-13 is the Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Kurnool

Medical College, Kurnool conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased was died due to HEAD

INJURYWITH INTRACRNIAL HEORRHAGE" viii. After completion of the investigation, LW-15 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.This Court took cognizance on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 Criminal Procedure Code.

5.On 24.09.2025. The accused was examined under section 251

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/s.304(A) of IPC, putting forth the substance of the accusation made against him in Telugu language for which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined LWs 1 to 3, 5 to 7, 11, 14 as PWs.1 to 8 (respectively) and got marked exhibits P1 to

P15. In view of the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, the learned Assistant Public 3

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the LW4/S.Pedda Maddaiah,

LW8/D.Balaswamy, LW9/A.Rangadu, LW10/M.Noor Ahammad,

LW12/R.Swathi, LW13/Dr C.Mahesh, LW15/M.Ramaiah.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence. On 16.04.2026, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language for which the accused denied his guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

(i) “Whether the prosecution has able to prove the rash or negligence of accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

(ii) “Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the accused u/sec.304(A) of IPC beyond reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

10. The investigation in this case commenced on the report of

PW1/S.Ankamma which was marked as Ex.P9. The brief contents of the complaint given by PW1 are that:-

On 14-08-2022, near Pasupala temple, Pasupala village, where construction was going on, then there the deceased went for personal work and while returning to Nandanapalli village after work, the accused driver of Cement Kankara miller, after loading the cement concrete, drove the vehicle in reverse rashly and negligently without observing the rear and dashed the deceased, and tyre ran over the head of the deceased 4

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

and he died on the spot. The complainant subsequently lodged a complaint at Kurnool Taluka Police station. Hence the report.

11. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.w.1 to Pw.4 clinchingly establishes that the deceased died in the road accident occurred due to rash driving of accused and therefore, accused is liable for punishment under section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code.

12.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances implicating rash or negligence on the part of the accused at the time of accident and therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence leveled against him, for which, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:-

13.In view of rival contentions of both sides, the entire evidence is perused. To bring home the guilt of rash or negligent driving of accused, the following ingredients should be proved by the prosecution.

(i) That there is a death of a person

(ii) That the deceased died due to accident caused by the offending vehicle driven by accused.

(iii) That the act of the accused must not amount to culpable homicide.

14.Before delving deep into the case, it is apposite to look into the relevant section involved in the present case.

Sec.304(A) IPC: 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 5

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Prosecution Witnesses:

15. Coming to the evidence of it is deposed by the PW1 , the defacto complainant that, at about 3 years ago, while she was at Pagidala village, LW5 telephonically informed her about his husband accident at pasupala village and was shifted to GGH Kurnool. She admitted that he has not witnessed the incident and also does not know the manner of accident or identity of the offending vehicle or the driver. Later she deposed that she lodged the complaint before the Taluka Police station and identified her signature thereon, and the same is marked.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW2 also deposed that about 3 years ago himself along with his sons went to Pagidala Village for attending one function and at about 5.00 PM he received information from LW5 that his father met with an accident at Pasupula Village. Immediately they rushed to the scene of offence and by the time he reached their he was shifted to GGH, Kurnool. Then he rushed to GGH, Kurnool and by the time they reached there he was no more and died on the spot. He observed severe bleeding injuries over forehead. He deposed that he do not know the manner of the accident and who cause the same. He further deposed that he do not know the manner of the accident and who caused the same.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW3 deposed that about 3 years ago himself along with his sons went to Pagidala Village for attending one function and at about 5.00 PM then PW2 informed him that his father met with an accident at Pasupula Village,. Then he rushed to the GGH,

Kurnool and by the time he reached there he was no more and died on the spot. he observed severe bleeding injuries over forehead. He deposed that he do not know the manner of the accident and who cause the same.

6

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

18.Coming to the evidence of PW4 he deposed that he do not know anything about this case. Further stated that police did not examined him and never recorded his statement at any point of time.

19.Coming to the evidence of PW5 deposed that about 2 to 3 years ago on one day at Pasupula Village, an accident occurred and he went to the scene of offence after the accident and he noticed one dead person who was native of Nuthanpalle Village, and he heard his name as

Murahari then he remember that LW2 s father name is also Murahari then he immediately informed about the accident to PW2. Then he left the place. He deposed that police did not examined him and recorded his statement. He admitted that he have not seen the accident and he do not know the manner of the same.

20.Coming to the evidence of PW6 deposed that about 3 years ago he went to the GGH, Kurnool to see the deceased and the police Kurnool

Taluka P.S requested him to act as panchaytdar. And conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence at mortuary and prepared inquest report and put his signature on it. Witness identified the signature on the inquest report and the same is marked as Ex.P7.

21. Coming to the evidence of PW7 deposed that At about four years ago, on one day while he went to Kurnool Taluk PS on his personal work then, one constable requested him to put signature regarding panchanama. At their request he put his signature on it. He admitted that no persons were arrested in his presence and he do not know the contents in which he put his signature. Witness identified his signature on confession mahazar and the same is marked.

22. Coming to the evidence of PW8 goes that on 15-08-2022 at about 8.00 am., while he was present in Kurnool Taluk PS he have received written complaint from PW-1. Basing on the complaint he registered a 7

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

case in Cr.No.481/2022 U/s.304-A IPC and issued FIR. Later, he went to the scene of offence situated at Pasupala Village and secured the presence of PWs-1 to 3 and recorded their statements and also secured the presence of PW-6 and LWs-8 and 9 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report. Later he forwarded the deceased dead boy to LW-13 /Dr.Mahesh for the purpose of conducting autopsy. Subsequently he have inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence.Later he secured the presence of PW-5 and recorded the statement and he have received

PM report from LW-13. Later he forwarded the case file to LW-15/ SI of police who verified the investigation report and found in correct lines. On 25-04-2023 accused voluntarily surrendered before LW-15 along with the crime vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP 26 BR6362 and LW-15 served Sec.41 (A) Cr.PC notice to the accused and he made requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle and accordingly he issued MVI report. Accused was arrested under cover of confession cum arrest panchanama dt:25- 04-2023 and served sec.41 notice to the accused. After completion of investigation LW-15 laid charge sheet against accused.

23. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he have obtained signature of PW-1 in the white paper and foisted this false case against the accused. He denied the suggestion that he have not examined any witnesses and prepared proceedings in the station. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the scene of offence and never prepared rough sketch and he conducted only table investigation.

He denied the suggestion that Ex.P-15 is prepared in the station and accused never committed any such offence. He denied the suggestion 8

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

that by calling the accused to the station he foisted false case against the accused and accused is no way concerned with the present case.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS:

24. While summoning up the entire evidence as discussed above, from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is observed that they both are not the eye witnesses to the manner of the accident and it shows that they has no personal knowledge of the accident. Further they cannot identify the driver and also cannot speak about the rash or negligence of the driver.

Hence, there evidence established only the factum of accident and death, but not the culpability of the accused.

25. Next coming to the evidence of PW3, it is clear that he has no personal knowledge about the case and he did not witness the accident and is unaware of the manner of the accident occurred and also could not identify the accused. Hence, PW3 did not support the prosecution on any manner of the accident as well as identity of the accused.

26. Further from the evidence of PW4 who did not support the prosecution case and simply stated that he do not know anything about this case and turned hostile for the reasons best known to him.

27. Coming to the evidence of PW5 who is said to be the eye witness, though deposed that he has went to the scene of offense and identified the deceased as father of LW2/PW2, he did not deposed about the crime vehicle and cause of the accident and also the manner of the accident.

So he being the eye witness, did not help the prosecution case.

28. The evidence of PW6 is with regard to the inquest and though he deposed that Police prepared inquest in their presence but the did not depose about the cause of death of the deceased.

29. Further from the evidence of the investigation officer, he admits the 9

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

contradiction. Further there is no direct evidence linking the accused to driving and about the surrender of the accused.

30. The prosecution has failed to establish the two cardinal ingredients of section 304 A of the IPC: That is the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle who caused the accident and further the rash or negligent act on the part of the accused.

31. Next absence of the eye witness in this case : Pw1 being the defacto complainant and PW2, categorically deposed she do not know the manner of the accident and it shows that she is hearsay witness. Further they cannot say on whose fault the accident occurred not occurred and also categorically deposed that he do not know the accused. So it is clear that none of the witnesses identified the accused.

32. Hence, as the witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version, without any corroborating evidence, conviction cannot be ordered basing on the sole testimony of the investigation officer. It is not a rule of prudence to convict the accused without any corroborating evidence.

33. Thus viewed from any angle, it can be said that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

34. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under sec.304(A) of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same Under sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

10

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

There is no order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the Court.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: PW1: S.Ankamma PW2: S.Mahesh PW3: S.Vishnu PW4: P.Madhanna PW5: P.Sekhar PW6: Shaik Mahaboob Basha PW7: A.Jayanna PW8: S.Lakshminarayana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature on the complaint Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5 Ex.P7: Signature on inquest report Ex.P8: Signature on confession mahazar Ex.P9: Written report Ex.P10: First Information Report Ex.P11: Inquest report Ex.P12: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P13: PM report Ex.P14: MVI report 11

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

Ex.P15: Confession and arrest panchanama For Defence: NIL

Material objects NIL

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

12

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.1684/2023

1. Date of Offence: 14-08-2022

2. Date of Complaint or report: 15-08-2022

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice served

4. Date of release of the accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 03-10-2025

6. Date of close of trial: 16-04-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 30-04-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any: --

ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Taluka P.S in Crime No.481/2022 Nikki Thirupati Jagadeesh, age 28 years, Accused S/o Nanchari, Occupation:Kankara mission R/o Musalamadugu village, Kottapalli mandal, Nandyal District Now at Kadapa Town Driver of Kankara mission bearing No.AP26 BR 6362 Offence : Causing death by negligence

Section of Law: U/s.304(A) of IPC

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under sec.304(A) of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the same Under sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated U/s.437-A Cr.P.C. There is no order as to property is passed, as no property was produced by the police before the Court.

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

13

CC No.1684/2023 dt:30.04.2026

// True copy // 14

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

APKU020027042019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

Present:-Smt.S.ANUSHA

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Kurnool

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

C.C.No.1162/2019

Between:

State: Represented by Sub Inspector of Police Bandiatmakur P.S. …Complainant

-And-

Indla Anumaiah, S/o. Indla Das, aged 50 years, R/o Kothakotala street, Bandiatmakur village and mandal …Accused

This case came before me on 27-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri

D.Kumara Swamy,Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

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

1.The Inspector of Police, Bandiatmakur P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.60/2019 for the offence punishable 1

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

under Sections.171(E), 188 of Indian Penal Code (herein referred as

IPC).

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:

i. On 8-4-2019 at 18.00 hrs while LW5/SI was present in the PS received information about the distributing the amount to the voters at

Kothakottala street, B.Atmakur village & mandal. Immediately he left police station along with staff ASI 302, HCS 2418,2636 PCs 2982, 3651 in the Police jeep AP9P-5575 and reached near Dargah and found one person is in possession of amount in his hand, on seeing the police party the said person tried to escape, SI of police along with his staff surrounded and detained him. On enquiry about his escaping on seeing them he revealed his identity and confessed that during the General elections in order to win the their supported candidate of YSRP party, while he was distributing the amount to the voters, the police came and caught hold of him. Then, he searched him and found Rs.500/--12;

Rs100/--4, Rs.50-1; total Rs.6,450/- cash, 6 pamphlets, voter list, YSRCP

Cap one in his possession. On examination of pamphlet, found Telugu letter" RAAVALI JAGAN, KAAVALI JAGAN, figure of YS Rajasekar

Reddy, Fan Gurthu ke mee votu, YSR Congress party Srisailam

Constituency Sree Silpa Chakrapani Reddy, Poling date 11-4-2019, in another side. published about NAVA RATHNALU. LW5 then arrested the accused and informed the reasons for his arrest as he was violated the orders issued by election commission and distributing the money to the voters to cast their votes in favour of his supporting party YSRCP, and then seized Cash Rs.6,450/-; 6- Pamplets; one Voter list and one YSRCP

Cap from his possession.

2

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

ii. Basing on the Police proceedings, LW-5 registered a case in Cr. No.

60/2019 U/s 171 (E), 188 IPC in Bandiatmakur P.S on 08-04-2019 the accused was released on self bail.

3.On 22.05.2019. This Court took cognizance on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Secs.171-E, 188 of IPC.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents are furnished to him as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

5.On 04.02.2020. The accused was examined under section 251

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/secs.171-E, 188 IPC, putting forth the substance of the accusation made against him for in telugu which he denied the commission of offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined LW1 and LW5 as PWs.1 and 2 (respectively) and got marked exhibits P1 to P3 and

MO1. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the LW2/K.Vijay Kumar, LW3/B.Siddaiah, LW4/S.Ameer Basha.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence. On 24.04.2026, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting forth the incriminating material that appears against him from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu language for which the accused denied his guilt. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9.Now the point for determination is:

(i) “Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the

accused punishable u/Secs.171-E, 188 of IPC beyond reasonable

doubt”?

3

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

POINT:

10. It is the case of the prosecution that the case was registered basing on the police Proceedings. it is mentioned that on tip- off about the cash distribution to the voters, investigation officer/LW5 reached to the spot and accused was found in possession of cash in hand, tried to escape but was detained with the help of staff and on search they found Rs. 6,450 cash and 6 YSRCP pamplets with "RAAVALI JAGAN, KAVALI JAGAN", voter list and YSRCP cap. Later accused confessed that he was distributing the money during general elections to support YSRCP candidate . Hence the said amount was seized from him under cover of police proceedings and the case was registered against the accused.

11. The learned APP has argued that the prosecution has successfully discharged its burden and proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable ground by cogent, convincing evidence from the evidence of PW1 and

PW2.

12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the identity of the accused and culpability of the accused through the testimony of PW1 and PW2 who are official witnesses and hence, contended that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS:-

13.Before delving deep into the case, it is apposite to look into the relevant section involved in the present case.

Sec.171-E IPC: Punishment for bribery

Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with 4

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both;

Provided that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.

Sec.188 IPC: Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant:-

Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empotheyred to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both;

And if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Prosecution Witnesses:

14. From the evidence of PW1 he deposed that on 8-04-2019 at about 18.00 hours during the general elections, LW5 received the credible information of election offence at Kothakottala village. the LW5 with LW2 to LW5 proceeded to the spot and found one person distributing money to the public and on seeing the police, accused tried to escape but was apprehended.

On enquiry he disclosed his identity and after searching they found

Rs.6,450/- cash, 6 pamphlets and voter list. Accused admitted that he has 5

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

no permission or license to distribute the same. Said items were seized under the Police proceedings and the same was marked as Exhibit P1.

15. During the cross examination he admitted that serial numbers of the seized currency is not mentioned and overwriting in the Police proceedings. Further admitted that exact place of drafting the Exhibit is not remembered by him and he admitted that the investigation officer has not enquired to the persons to whom the alleged amount was distributed and also admitted that the scene of offence is surrounded by the residential houses, Further the learned defense counsel suggested the witness that the said seized amount was belongs to the accused and he was carrying the same for purchase of the pesticides to his fields and by showing the same they filed filed case against the accused and the said suggestion is denied by the witness.

16. Coming to the evidence of PW2 who is the investigation officer has deposed in his chief examination that he received the police proceedings from the PW1 and basing on the same he registered the case and then served the section 41 A Cr.P.C.

notices to the accused and then after completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet.

17. During the cross examination the investigation officer has admitted that village name of the voter list is not mentioned and serial numbers of the seized amount is not noted and he deposed that Exhibit P1 is scribed by the Head constabe not by him. He admitted that as per fifth line in the

Police proceedings it is mentioned that investigation officer also accompanied to the scene of offence along with the PW1 and his staff. At this juncture it creates doubt whether really the investigation officer has accompanied to the scene of offense or not.

6

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

Further he also admitted that no independent mediators were secured at the scene of offence and also description of the pamphlets also not mentioned. Further more admitted that he participated in the raid as shown in the police proceedings and FIR, whereas in chief he deposed in other version.

18. While going to the evidence of PW1 and PW2, PW1 deposed that

PW2 also accompanied them to the scene of offence as they received the credible information about the election offence. Where as PW2 deposed that he received the police proceedings from Pw1 and registered the case. Hence, there are some discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 with that of the charge sheet. Further PW2 being the investigation officer, has not stated as mentioned in the charge sheet contents. His there is no corroborating evidence from the PW1 and PW2 evidence.

During the cross examination they both categorically admitted that they have not mentioned the serial number of the said currency and also not mentioned the description of the seized pamphlets and also admitted that they have not tried to secure the independent witness and also admitted that the alleged scene of offence is a busy locality.

19. According to section 100 (4) Cr.P.C, search and seizure must be conducted in the presence of two respectable local inhabitants. As the place of offence is amenable to secure independent persons and it is not an isolated place, as admitted by the Pw1 that the scene of offence is surrounded by residential houses, then, the non-securing the local persons as mediators is one of the draw back to the prosecution’s case.

In this regard, it is pertinent to note the relevant citation of Honourable

Supreme Court in this aspect in the case of State Vs. Arun reported in

AIR 2003 SC 801 held that :“Where there is no independent witnesses 7

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

from the locality, the prosecution must offer reasonable explanation where it transfers that not only there were many residences in that locality but also large number of people assembled at the time of recovery.” 20. Further disclosing the attempts of the Investigating Officer to secure independent persons at the scene of offence, nothing is placed on record though staff members of PW-1 had followed him to the place of occurrence. Ex.P1 does not contain the signatures of staff who participated in the raid as well as the accused. There are several lacunae and infirmities in the evidence of PW-1. Thus, his evidence cannot be believed.

21. PW.2 is the complainant and investigating officer who filed the charge sheet, as such his evidence should be scrutinized carefully. It is settled law that any official who detected the crime cannot also be the investigation officer as held in 2003 Vol.1 ALD Criminal Page 13. In the present case, LW5/PW2/ SI is both the official who detected the crime and as well as the Investigation officer. Without any independent corroboration, basing on the evidence of police officials, it is not safe to conclude that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

22. Apart from the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, the prosecution has mainly relied upon Police proceedings. This court has gone through it, the contents of Police proceedings reveals that the accused confessed their guilt before the police without any individual witness which is inadmissible in the eye of law as per Sec.25 of India Evidence Act.

Hence, the Police proceedings cannot be taken into consideration . This court relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of AP “ In decision reported in 2005 (2) APLJ , Page No. 73 in K. Babu rao Vs. State of AP 8

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

his lordship held that the alleged recovery by the police whose evidence cannot be straight away believed because there was no panch witness and the explanation of the prosecution evidence is not acceptable.” In this case, no panch witness is present . Hence, the evidence of PW1 is not taken straight away.

23. Since, the evidence of PW.1 and PW2 found to be artificial, conviction is not proper basing on this type of evidence. Further more there is no whisper about the alleged cap of YSRCP party and also the voter list filed is not consisting of the village name to corroborate the evidence of the witnesses and further the pamphlets alleged to have seize is no where shown and not even marked by the prosecution. Hence the said pamphlets alleged to have seized from the possession of accused also not proved. Further the accused during the 313 Cr.P.C examination has stated that the said amount was his personal amount and the same was kept by him to purchase the pesticides. Hence by considering the same and as the offence was not proved against the accused, it is proper to return the amount to the accused.

24. In view of the inconsistencies and infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, benefit of doubt goes to accused.

25. In view of the findings answered to the point No.1, the accused entitled for acquittal.

26. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 171-E and 188 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall remained in force for a period of six months u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1 FDR of Rs.6,450/- shall be returned to owner/accused 9

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

after the expiry of appeal time and the unmarked property i.e., 6 pamplets of YSRCP cap and voter list shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For prosecution: For Defence: PW1: O.Bhaskar Raju -None-

PW2: M.Vishnu Narayana

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Police proceedings -Nil- Ex.P2: First Information Report Ex.P3: Voter list

Material objects

MO1: FDR No.8075518935

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

// True copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court), Kurnool.

10

CC No.1162/2019 dt:30.04.2026

CALENDAR & JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(SPECIAL MOBILE COURT), KURNOOL.

C.C.No.1162/2019

1. Date of Offence: 08-04-2019

2. Date of Complaint or report: 08-04-2019

3. Date of apprehension of the accused : U/Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C notice served

4. Date of release of the accused : --

5. Date of commencement of trial: 27-02-2026

6. Date of close of trial: 24-04-2026

7. Date of Sentence or Order: 30-04-2026

8. Explanation of delay if any: -

ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, Bandiatmakur P.S in Crime No.60/2019 Indla Anumaiah, Accused S/o. Indla Das, aged 50 years, R/o Kothakotala street, Bandiatmakur village and mandal Offence :Punishment for bribery, Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant

Section of Law: U/ss.171-E, 188 of IPC

Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty

Sentence/Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec. 171-E and 188 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same u/Sec 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused with that of his sureties shall remained in force for a period of six months u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. MO1 FDR of Rs.6,450/- shall be returned to owner/accused after the expiry of appeal time and the unmarked property i.e., 6 pamplets of YSRCP cap and voter list shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- S.Anusha

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Special Mobile Court) Kurnool. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate-Cum-Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

11

1 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026

APKU020056942025

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), CUM SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL.

PRESENT:- Smt.S.Anusha

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool

Thursday, this the 30th day of April, 2026

Original Suit No.1447/2025

Chakali Madhu, S/o Late C.Linganna, Age 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 41-320-16, Kothapeta, Kurnool-518001 . . . Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Chakali Vinod Kumar, S/o Chakali Madhu, Age 35 years, R/o H.No.13-7, Kapa Street, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District-518466

2. Chakali Raju, S/o Chakali Madhu, Age 32 years, R/o H.No.13-7, Кара Street, Gudur Mandal, Kurnool District-518466 . . . Defendants

This suit is coming on 26.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Mohana Krishna, Sri B.Shiva Shankar, Sri

A.Ramanjaneyulu,Advocates for plaintiff and the defendants are set 1 2 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026 exparte, and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of the plaintiff and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.Nature of the suit:-This is a suit for partition of suit schedule property into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

a) It is pleaded in the plaint that plaintiff and the defendants are members of a joint family and the defendants are sons of the plaintiff and that the suit schedule property is ancestral joint family property, continuously inherited from three generations. The suit schedule property has never been divided by metes and bounds at any point of time.

b) Petitioner submitted that, the suit schedule property originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandmother, late Chakali Usenamma, who acquired agricultural land situated in Survey No. 489, Khata No. 211, measuring Ac. 3.86 cents in Mudumalagurthi Village, Kodumuru Mandal,

Kurnool District and she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment during her Life time.

c) Petitioner submitted that, upon the death of Chakali Usenamma, the said property devolved upon her son, late Chakali Pullanna, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff. The said Chakali Pullanna enjoyed and cultivated the suit schedule property jointly with his family and after the demise of Sri Chakali Pullanna. the Suit Schedule Property devolved upon his son, late Sri Chakali Linganna, who is the father of the plaintiff.

The said Sri Chakali Linganna died intestate, leaving behind the plaintiff 2 3 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026 and his mother as his sole legal heirs. Subsequently, the mother of the plaintiff also passed away intestate. as a result of which the plaintiff alone succeeded to her estate and became the absolute successor to her share in the suit schedule property.

d) Petitioner further submitted that, in order to avoid future disputes and in view of the financial requirements of the defendants, the plaintiff requested the defendants for an amicable partition of the Suit Schedule property, but the defendants refused and are interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of his legitimate share

e) Petitioner further submitted that, on 27.10.2025, the defendants openly proclaimed that they are the exclusive owners of the suit schedule property and that they are under no obligation to allot any share to the plaintiff. The defendants have further threatened that they would alienate and sell the suit schedule property with an intention to defeat the lawful rights of the plaintiff as a co-sharer.

f) Petitioner contended that the plaintiff and the defendants constitute a Hindu Joint Family, and the suit schedule property being ancestral in nature, each coparcener is entitled to an equal share therein.

Since there are three coparceners, namely the plaintiff and the two defendants, each of them is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff, therefore, claims his legitimate 1/3rd share, and the remaining 2/3rd share belongs collectively to the defendants.

g) Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to approach this Hon'ble

Court seeking partition of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff submits that the suit schedule property has all along remained in the joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and the 3 4 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026 defendants, and no partition by metes and bounds has taken place till date. The plaintiff and the defendants continue to be in joint physical possession of the suit schedule property, exercising joint possession and enjoyment thereof as coparceners. Hence the suit.

3.Summons served to defendants no.1 and 2, but the defendants neither appeared before this court nor engaged counsel. No representation. D1 and D2 were heard exparte to the proceedings on 02.03.2026.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration is

1. Whether the suit schedule property is ancestral property and liable for partition ?

2.“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate

possession of the 1/3 rd share, as prayed for?”

3. To what relief?

POINT:

7) To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 – original market value certificate of the plaint schedule property dt:22.11.2025, 4 5 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026

Ex.A2 – attested copy of attested manual adangal of the plaint schedule property for the fasli 1404, Ex.A3 – original Register of holdings pertaining to the plaint schedule property issued by the Sub-Registrar.

8) Issue No.1 and 2: 1. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for partition as prayed for? 2.“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the 1/3 rd share, as prayed for?”

a) In a suit for partition the following points are to be determined.

(i) The nature and character of the suit property

(ii) The devolution of interest in the property

(iii) Properties in the suit are capable of being partitioned effectively

(iv) All the properties are included in the Suit and all co-sharers, coparceners, co-owners or joint-owners are made parties to the Suit. b) It is the case of the plaintiff that he is entitled for one third share in the suit schedule property as properties belongs to his ancestors property. Defendant No.1 and 2 being managing suit schedule property when the plaintiff asked the defendant No.1 and 2 for partition of the properties, they refused and hence, he was constrained to file this suit.

c) Per contra, to disprove the same, the defendants has failed to appear before the court.

d) As plaintiff approached this Court seeking the relief of Partition, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case.

e)P.W.1 filed the chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint with regard to the fact that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and thus he had share over the suit schedule property.

9) According to the evidence of PW1/Chakali Madhu coupled with

Exs.A1 to A3, there was a demand from the plaintiff for partition and 5 6 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026 separate possession of his 1/3rd share in Sy.No.489 out of 3 shares.

According to his evidence, the plaintiff and defendants are sons of the family. And upon perusal of the Ex.A1 to A3, plaintiff is able to prove his contention.

10) At this juncture, this court relied upon the Judgment as held in

Saurabh Gupta, Appellant Vs. Smt. Archna Gupta and two others,

Respondents [2024:AHC-LKO:13664], wherein in Para 8 it was held that :: “Counsel for the appellant further relied upon the judgment of Apex court in the case of Smt. Ranibai alias Mannubai Vs. Smt. Kamla Devi and others, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1946, in which Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the injunction should be granted in the suit for a declaration if the Court feels protection is to be given in the pending suit. Therefore, he lastly submitted that a prima facie case for granting injunction has not considered by the Court below. Thus, considering this fact, as well as the legal position that the property purchased in the name of the homemaker by the husband will be deemed to be the property of joint family property, the appellant is entitled to 1/4th share in the property in dispute, therefore, his right should be protected by restraining the respondents from creating any 3rd part’s right.”

11) As noted above, the defendants 1 and 2 did not choose to contest the matter, therefore, the evidence in chief of PW1 and the contents of Exs.A1 to A3 are remained as unchallenged. Further, the defendants were set exparte, no evidence placed on behalf of them. If the defendants have got any case, they would come and contest the case by way of rebuttable evidence. But they failed to do the same. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW1 and the contents of Exs.A1 to A3, this court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the suit schedule 6 7 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026 property. Hence, it can be safely held that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of 1/3rd share through partition of the plaint schedule property into 3 equal shares.

12) Issue No.3: To What relief:- In view of findings on Issues No.1 and 2, the suit is to be decreed.

13) In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed without costs in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants for partition of the suit schedule properties into three equal shares and out of the same 1/3rd equal share is to be alloted to plaintiff by metes and bounds and put the plaintiff into separate possession into the extent of their respective share within two months from the date of this judgment failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get the same through process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30 th day of April, 2026

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KURNOOL.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1: Chakali Madhu-None-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: original market value certificate of the plaint schedule property

dt:22.11.2025

Ex.A2: Attested copy of attested manual adangal of the plaint schedule property for the fasli 1404 Ex.A3: Original Register of holdings pertaining to the plaint schedule property issued by the Sub-Registrar 7 8 OS No.1447/2025, dt.30.04.2026

For Defendants: -Nil-

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KURNOOL.

8

1 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025

APKU020012392024

Presented on : 16-04-2024 Registered on : 16-04-2024 Decided on : 20-06-2025 Duration : 1 years, 2 months, 4 days

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION), CUM SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, KURNOOL.

PRESENT:- Smt.S.Anusha

III Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurnool

Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025

Original Suit No.444/2024

Boggula Nannesaheb, S/o B.Ahemmed Miah, Muslim, aged about 57 years, R/o D.No.4-17, Pasupala Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District.. . . Plaintiff

Vs.

S.Noor Ahammad, S/o B.Ahemmad Miah, aged about 54 years, R/o Pasupula Village, Kurnool Mandal, Kurnool District. . . . Defendant

This suit is coming on 19.06.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Srinivasan and Sri P.Janardhan Reddy,Advocates for plaintiff and the defendant is set exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day this court, delivered the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking to Pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant a) declare the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and consequential Mandatory injunction 2 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025 directing the defendant to remove the poles erected in the area marked

ABCD in the plaint plan covering an extent about Ac.0.16. b) permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men and agents from in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

a) The plaintiff, the defendant and S.Naisr Basha are the brothers they partitioned the ancestral land. The defendant and S.Naisr Basha sold the schedule shown land which felt to their share, to the plaintiff, for valuable consideration and the same is registered as per sale deed no.3372/2002

dated 07.05.2002. The plaintiff is possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule shown property, ever since.

b) But, while the plaintiff was on a tour, the defendant, without any manner of right, tress passed into plaintiffs land and installed Poles covering an extent of Ac.016 and in the process damaged the standing "KANDI" crop, in the area marked as ABCD in the plaint plan.

c)Immediately, on his return, the plaintiff protested the illegal and high handed occupation, of the defendant and demanded immediate removal of the fencing. But the defendant refused to oblige the demand of the Plaintiff and also asserted that the site in which the fencing is erected belongs to him. Plaintiff tried to pull down the poles but the defendants with his rowdy friends, who were with him at that time, over powered him and threatened with dire consequences if the plaintiff tries to take any further steps to remove the poles, illegally erected by the defendant. It became very clear to the plaintiff that he is no match to counter the forces of the defendant, as he is well connected to musclemen and some persons in power.

d) Further plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of the Police. But, as the subject matter of the complainant is of civil in nature, the police expressed their unwillingness to take any initiative 3 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025 in the matter and the plaintiff is advised to settle the matter through court of law and hence this suit.

e) The plaintiff submits that the defendant acted illegally and without any manner of right in occupying about Ac.0.16 of his property. Marked

ABCD in the plaint plan.

f) Therefore, the plaintiff prays that Hon'ble court may be pleased to declare his right over the plaint schedule property and consequential removal of the fencing illegally erected by the defendant, in the area marked

ABCD in the plaint plan, covering an extent about Ac.0.16. Hence the suit.

3.Defendant was set ex parte in the present suit.Hence, he was set exparte to the proceedings on 06.03.2025.

4.The plaintiff in support of his contentions got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked exhibits PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction

against the defendant as prayed for?.”

POINT:

7.The chief examination of PW-1 is reiterated the averments of the plaint. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt:07.05.2002 vide Doc.No.3372/2002 executed by S.Noor

Ahammed and S.Nasir Basha in favour of plaintiff.

8.On perusal of Ex.A1, this court is of the opinion that the case of plaintiffs are proved. Further, the defendant was set exparte, no evidence placed on behalf of the defendant before this court. In Vidyadhar Rao Vs.

4 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025

Manic Rao (AIR 1999 SC 1441) the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “if any

party fails to appear and given evidence in the court, it can be treated

as no case on her behalf”.

9. As per Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, if any party to the proceedings fails to enter into the witness box to prove his own case, the presumption can be drawn that the party who fails to appear before the court have no case and an adverse inference can be drawn against that party.

10. In the judgment in Vidyadhar Rao case as stated supra their lordships observed that presumption Under Section 114 of Evidence Act can be drawn against the party, who did not enter into witness box that what he pleads is not correct and further observed that where a party does not appear into witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by other side, the presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.

11.In another Judgment reported in 2004 (3) ALT 665 (DB), in between

Indian Bank Vs. V.R. Venkataraman and others their lordships observed that when a party does not enter into witness box to prove the case set up by him, the presumption Under Section114 of Evidence Act has to be drawn that the version raised in pleading is not true one. If the defendant has got any case, he would come and contest the case by way of positive evidence.

But he did not do so.

12.Therefore, it can be safely held that the defendant without having any right over the plaint schedule property trying to interfere into the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as alleged by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs

a) by declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and the defendant is directed to remove the poles erected in the area marked 5 OS No.444/2024, dt.20.06.2025

ABCD in the plaint plan covering an extent about Ac.0.16 within four months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through due process of law;

b) the defendant and his men and agents are restraining from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by way of permanent injunction.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 20 th day of June, 2025.

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KURNOOL.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1:B.Nannesaheb-Nil-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered sale deed dt:07.05.2002 vide Doc.No.3372/2002 executed by S.Noor Ahammed and S.Nasir Basha in favour of plaintiff

For Defendant:

-Nil-

III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION),

KURNOOL.