Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram

III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram · West Godavari · Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L.,, Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, is posted at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh, India. 830 court orders on record since 2015. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, MC cases.

830

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/74/2015 Acquitted

SHO, Palakoderu PS vs Nandam Yesu alias Vasu

22 Feb 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHIMAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: WEST GODAVARIC.C.NO.74/2015DATES OF Offence FilingAppearanceReleased Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trialof order 21-1-14 9-9-14 16-10-15 18-2-14 5-2-16 10-2-2017 22-2-17

Explanation for delay:summons not served in time

Between

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu P.S.… Complainant.

AND

Nandam Yesu @ Vasu, S/o. Satyanarayana, 28 years, Goraganamudi of Palakoderu,

Rider of motor cycle No.AP13 R 4310..Accused

Crime No. 19/2014 of Palakoderu PS

OFFENCE :- Sec.304-A IPC

FINDING :- Accused is Found not Guilty.

SENTENCE :-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Smt.Sunkara Sridevi

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial I Class Magistrate.

On Wednesday,Twenty second (22nd ) day of February, Two thousand Seventeen(2017)

C.C NO.74/2015

Original C.C.No.916/2014 of II AJFCMC,BVRM.

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu P.S..… Complainant. AND

Nandam Yesu @ Vasu, S/o. Satyanarayana, 28 years, Goraganamudi of Palakoderu,

Rider of motor cycle No.AP13 R 4310..Accused

This case is coming on 10-2-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri K.V.Ramesh, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is originally numbered as C.C.916/2014 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram and transferred the

same to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, West Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No.2709 dated 17.04.2014 and renumbered as C.C.No.74/2015.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palakoderu P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr.19/2014 under Sec.304-A IPC.

3. The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows: LW1 Esarla

Naga Lakshmi is resident of Jinnuru of Poduru Mandal, deceased Peddiraju is her husband. On 21-1-2014 in the evening when the deceased and his wife came to Bhimavaram to visit Mavullamma temple and on their return towards Jinnuru by their motor cycle and they reached Vissakoderu Bridge at 8.30 PM, the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 13 R 4310 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased from opposite direction. As a result the deceased Peddi Raju and his wife fall on the road and Peddi Raju sustained severe head injury on his right fore head and right great toe. LW1 Naga Lakshmi sustained simple abrasion. They were shifted to Varma Hospitals,Bhimavaram and there from 3

Apple hospital,Tanuku. On 28-1-2014 when he was brought to home as per advise of doctors by saying no use he succumbed to his injuries. Due to innocence the relatives of the deceased who are uneducated cremated the dead body in burial grounds of Palakol on 28-1-2014 at 7 PM. Here the hospital intimation from Apple Hospital Tanuku, the statement of injured LW1

Naga Lakshmi was recorded by PW7 and registered the same as a case in crime number 19/14 u/s.338 IPC and during the course of investigation after receiving the death intimation the section of law was altered from 338 IPC to 304-A IPC. The HC of Palakoderu PS took up investigation examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 17-2-2014 at 7 PM the accused was arrested at his house at Goraganamudi and forwarded for remand. On completion of investigation, the SI of Palakoderu PS filed charge sheet in this case.

4. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections.304-A IPC. The accused after receipt of summons appeared

before this Court and received the copies furnished to him. He was examined

under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation as alleged in the charge sheet pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 11 examined and Exs.P1 to

P15 are marked.

PW1: K.Srinu, PW2: E.Arudra, PW3: G.Lakshmi, PW4: D.Malleswararao,

PW5: Ch.Venkata Ramana, PW6: Dr.D.Durga Prasad, PW7: S.B.V.G.Kumar,

PW8: K.Mohana Vamsi,PW9: E.Durga Prasad, PW10: G.Satya Niranjan Rao,

PW.11: M.A.Ramarao.

ExP1 : Scene observation report, Ex.P2: inquest report,Ex.P3:MVI report, Ex.P4: Opinion of PW6, Ex.P5: Hospital intimation, Ex.P6: Statement of

E.Nagalaxmi, Ex.P7:FIR, Ex.P8: rough sketch, Ex.P9: Report of Satya Niranjan

Rao along with photographs, Ex.P10: Altered FIR, Ex.P11: rough sketch,Ex.P12: Death certificate of deceased, Ex.P13: 161 CrPC statement of 4

PW9, Ex.P14:161 Cr.PC statement of PW10, Ex.P15: Wound certificate of

Peddi Raju.

6. Upon closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appeared against him from prosecution side witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence side evidence is closed.

7. Now the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the deceased Peddiraju died due to the accident on the date of offence?

(ii) Whether the accused was rider of the crime vehicle i.e,motor cycle bearing No. AP 13R 4310 drivern the same in a rash and negligent manner resulted the accident?

(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304- A of IPC?

8. Heard the APP and counsel for defence. Learned APP submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses sufficiently shows that due to the rash and negligence of the accused coming from opposite direction hit the crime vehicle to the motor cycle of the deceased resulted the accident. But on the other hand Learned counsel for defence submitted that neither accident nor the result of the accident are not in dispute. According to him this court has to decide the necessary ingredients of rash and negligence to prove the accusation u/s.304-A IPC. According to him the accident was in opposite direction which was supported by the prosecution witnesses. PW1 and LW2 Krishna are not eye witnesses to the occurrence. As seen from the evidence of the Investigating officer the accident was occurred in the middle of the road which is extreme right to the motor cycle of the deceased. It is only a mishap or negligence of the deceased. Except PW1 there is no other evidence and a benefit should goes to the accused to consider the negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted the accident for which the accused also sustained injuries.

9. Point No.i:

The case of the prosecution is that on 21-1-2014 at 8.30PM when the deceased Peddiraju and his wife LW1 Naga Lakshmi were returning from

Bhimavaram towards Palakol on their motor cycle. When they reached near the scene of offence which is Vissakoderu bridge, the accused rider of the crime vehicle along with a pillion rider coming opposite to the motor cycle of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bike of the deceased. As a result both the deceased and his wife fall on the road and sustained injuries. The deceased sustained head injury and he was shifted to

Varma Hospital for treatment immediately there from Apple hospital, Tanuku for better treatment. Basing on the hospital intimation of Apple hospital, HC of Palakoderu PS recorded the statement of Naga Lakshmi and registered the crime u/s.337 IPC. The deceased while undergoing treatment succumbed to his injuries on 28-1-2014 at house and the relatives of the deceased due to their innocence cremated the dead body. Basing on the report of the elder of

Palakoderu village the section of law was altered to section 304-A IPC. To prove the contention of the prosecution that the deceased Peddiraju died due to the injuries in the road accident dt.21-1-2014 near Vissakoderu Bridge to prove the accusation u/s.304-A IPC the burden is on the prosecution. To discharge the same prosecution examined the 1st witness on its behalf who is said to be eye witness to the occurrence. On perusal of his evidence shows the accident was on 21-1-2014 near Visskoderu when the motor cycle coming from the opposite direction hit the motor cycle of the deceased which resulted both the deceased and LW1 Naga Lakshmi sustained injuries and they were shifted to Varma hospital,Bhimavaram . Though the counsel for the defence denied the evidence of PW1 regarding the other material aspects absolutely either the accident or its result no where denied. Apart from it the argument submitted by the counsel for defence that the accident also resulted injuries to the accused absolutely the contention of the 6 prosecution remains unchallenged regarding the accident and its result when the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

10. However let us see the evidence of PW2 who is said to be the mother of the deceased. Her evidence shows coming to know about the accident she went to Apple hospital,Tanuku and saw the injured in intensive care unit. PW3 is another relative of the deceased who similarly stated that she went to Tanuku and saw the injured in Intensive care unit. Both the evidences of PWs 2 and 3 remains unchallenged as the cross examination reported as nil. PW4 is the VRO,Vissakoderu who was present when the police collected the ash and bones in the burial ground at Yedla

Bazar,Palakol. Through his evidence the scene observation report was marked as Ex.P1 and the inquest report as Ex.P2. A formal suggestion was put to the witness that those reports were drafted in the police station which was denied by the witness. As seen from the contention of the defence coupled with the argument of the counsel for accused absolutely there is no dispute regarding the accident which resulted the death of the deceased. To corroborate the evidence of above referred prosecution witnesses it further examined PW11 who is duty doctor in Apple hospital,Tanuku.

11. His evidence shows on 21-1-2014 at 12 PM, he examined the injured Peddiraju and treated the injuries referred in the wound certificate under Ex.P15. Counsel for defence who cross examined the witness elicited that the condition of the patient is serious referred in Ex.P15 but the nature of injuries are not noted as grievous. Here it was suggested that the injuries in Ex.P15 may be possible due to fall on the hard surface when skid from a bike was also admitted by the medical officer. However the counsel for defence did not deny either the examination of the deceased on 21-1-2014 by the medical officer at Apple hospital,Tanuku which is the contention of the prosecution to register the present crime basing on the report of LW1

Naga Lakshmi. So the evidence of medical officer sufficiently corroborates the case of the prosecution to prove its contention that the deceased 7

Peddiraju died due to the road accident on the date of offence. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

12. Point No.ii : The case of the prosecution in further is that the accused who is rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 13R 4310 who in a rash and negligent manner coming from opposite direction hit the motor cycle of deceased who was proceeding from Bhimavaram to

Palakoderu. To prove the said contention the evidence of the prosecution on its behalf is PW1 who is an eye witness to the occurrence. He stated in his chief examination that on 21-1-2014 when the deceased was proceeding on motor cycle along with his family from Mavullamma temple, Bhimavaram, they were following on their motor cycle. Himself and his brother LW3

Krishna were on their bike. When the motor cycle of the deceased reached near Vissakoderu bridge a motor cycle coming from Palakol to Bhimavaram in an excessive speed hit the motor cycle of deceased in front of old theatre.

The deceased and LW1 Naga Lakshmi sustained injuries and they were immediately shifted to CHC,Bhimavaram and there from Tanuku to a private hospital, one week after the accident the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and the reason for the accident is excessive speed of the crime vehicle without blowing horn dashed the bike. As seen from the chief examination of PW1 he is an eye witness to the occurrence and following on a motor cycle of the deceased from Bhimavaram to Palakol.

13. Here the Learned APP given up the evidences of LW1Naga Lakshmi and LW3 Krishna by reporting they went to gulf countries. So the material witnesses on behalf of the prosecution who are the eye witnesses and present at the spot were given up by prosecution by filing VRO report. So the only witness i.e., PW1 is the material witness on behalf of the prosecution to prove its contention. As seen from his evidence he is following on the motor cycle of the deceased and witnessed the occurrence when the accused hit the motor cycle of deceased Peddiraju. Counsel for defence who 8 cross examined the witness at the time of argument submitted that the defence is neither denying the accident or its result. But according to the defence, the deceased who came in the middle of the road hit the vehicle of the accused which is only a mishap but not otherwise. Here the defence to elicit contributory negligence on the part of the deceased elicited the material in the cross examination. During the cross examination PW1 stated that by the time he reached the injured, people were already gathered there and they are 15 in number. According to him occurrence took place on the right margin to the road proceeding from Bhimavaram to Palakol.

14. Here it is relevant to refer the cross examination of the investigating officer who was examined as PW8 stated in his cross examination that the persons who are coming from Palakol to Bhimavaram proceeding towards left side to the road similarly people going towards

Palakol from Bhimavaram also to proceed towards left side to the said road.

He also admitted that the P.P Road has both central and left side margins which are demarcated separately. He further stated that according to him the accident was in the middle of the road.

15.Now let us see the evidence of PW1 which shows the accident was took place on the right margin to the road proceeding from Bhimavaram to

Palakol which is also similarly shows the scene of offence in the middle of the road. But PW1 again in his evidence stated that the accident was occurred in the left side margin which shows the inconsistency in his evidence to believe his version where the occurrence was in the left side margin or in the right side margin. His cross examination further shows that there is bridge at the scene at a distance of 20 feet back and he did not observe any speed breakers on either side of the road towards Bhimavaram and Palakol and according to him after the hit deceased vehicle and the crime vehicle fell towards theatre side. His evidence further shows there are no vehicles on the road and their bike was proceeding slowly on the back of the auto. So the variance in the evidence of PW1 though he is an eye witness to the spot, an 9 auto before their motor cycle clinchingly shows that he is not an eye witness directly witnessed the spot at the time of accident. As seen from his evidence he unable to state the place of offence where it is right side or left side to the road margin. As seen from the topography in the cross examination of investigating officer, the motor cycle of the deceased has to proceed on the left side to the road proceeding towards Palakol. Similarly the bike of the accused has to proceed towards Bhimavaram on the left side of the same road. In those circumstances if at all the deceased bike is proceeding towards the left margin the occurrence ought to have found towards the left margin but not towards right margin which is the opposite direction as stated by PW1.

16. Considering the evidence of investigating officer as the occurrence in the middle of the road which has the central and left side margins demarcated separately invariably shows that the bike of the deceased went towards right side to the said road at the time of accident. As seen from the evidence of PW1 coupled with the contention of the defence when there was a central margin demarcating the said road and the place of occurrence is in the middle of the road it can not be ascertain from the evidence of PW1 that accused alone responsible for his negligence resulted the accident. If at all the deceased was proceeding slowly on his bike towards left side how the motor cycle of the deceased met with an accident in the middle of the road was not stated by PW1 in his evidence. Here except the evidence of PW1 there is no other evidence on behalf of prosecution to corroborate his evidence to show before this court that the motor cycle of deceased proceeding towards left margin and the accused from opposite direction coming on his motor cycle, hit the bike of deceased resulted the accident.

Here the evidence of PW8 who is the SI of Palakoderu PS placed a crucial role to believe the version of the defence that not only the negligence of accused resulted the accident as it was happened in the middle of the road when there is a central margin separating the said road. The evidence of 10

PW1 regarding the place of occurrence and the observation of him about the said road are all shows that his evidence is not sufficient to fix the liability of accused for his rash and negligence resulted the accident. The other witnesses who are said to be the relatives of deceased though examined as

PWs 2 and 3, their evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the ingredients of rash and negligence on his part. Apart from their evidence prosecution examined PW9, PW10 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. But the said witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

17. So except the evidence of Pw1 there is no evidence to prove the ingredients of rash and negligence on the part of accused. Hence this point is answered partly in favour of the prosecution and partly against the prosecution.

18. POINT No.iii: In view of the findings in Points (i) and (ii) though there is evidence that the deceased Peddiraju died on the road accident and accused was rider of the crime vehicle, there is no evidence which is sufficient to prove the ingredients of rash and negligence on the part of the accused which resulted the accident. Accordingly a benefit should goes to the accused. Hence this point is answered against the prosecution.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 17th day of February,2017.

Sd/-Smt.Sunkara Sridevi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : For defence PW1 : K.Srinu, nil PW2 : E.Arudra, PW3 : G.Lakshmi, PW4 : D.Malleswararao, PW5 : Ch.Venkata Ramana, 11

PW6 : Dr.D.Durga Prasad, PW7 : S.B.V.G.Kumar, PW8 : K.Mohana Vamsi, PW9 : E.Durga Prasad, PW10: G.Satya Niranjan Rao, PW.11: M.A.Ramarao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For defence Ex.P1 : Scene observation report, Ex.P2 : inquest report,nil Ex.P3 : MVI report, Ex.P4 : Opinion of PW6, Ex.P5 : Hospital intimation, Ex.P6 : Statement of E.Nagalaxmi, Ex.P7 : FIR, Ex.P8 : rough sketch, Ex.P9 : Report of Satya Niranjan Rao along with photographs, Ex.P10: Altered FIR, Ex.P11: rough sketch, Ex.P12: Death certificate of deceased, Ex.P13: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW9, Ex.P14: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW10, Ex.P15: Wound certificateof Peddi Raju.

Sd/- SSD.,

P.J.C.J cum J.F.C.M Bhimavaram

CC/246/2015 Acquitted

SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS. vs Kalidindi Venkatarma Raju

23 Feb 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHIMAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: WEST GODAVARIC.C.NO.246/2015DATES OF Offence FilingAppearance Released Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trialof order 16814 24914 5116 25814 26216 1722017 2322017

Explanation for delay:Summons not served in time

Between State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town P.S.… Complainant.

AND

Kalidindi Venkatrama Raju, S/o. Rama Krishnam Raju, Age.36 years, Driver of Maruthi Swift Dzie Car No.AP 05 BM 0077 D.NO.1724, 4th lane, Youth club road, Venkata Raju Nagar, ChinaAmiram village, Bhimavaram Mandal.…Accused

Crime No. 145/2014 of Bhimavaram I Town P.S.

OFFENCE : Secs. 304A, 338 IPC.

FINDING :- Accused is Found not Guilty.

SENTENCE :-In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A and 338 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under

Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Sd/-Smt.Sunkara Sridevi

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial I Class Magistrate.

On Thursday, twenty third (23rd ) day of February, Two thousand Seventeen(2017)

C.C NO.246/2015

Original C.C.No.929/2014 of II AJFCMC,BVRM.

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Bhimavaram I Town P.S.. … Complainant. AND

This case is coming on 17-2-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri B.Damodar Rao, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is originally numbered as C.C.929/2014 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram and transferred the

same to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, West Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No.2709 dated 17.04.2014 and renumbered as C.C.No.246/2015.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr.145/2014 under Secs.304-A,338 and 337 IPC.

3. The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows: On 16-8- 2014 basing on the statement of PW1, the HC of Bhimavaram I Town PS registered the present crime under sec.338 and 337 IPC. He took up investigation proceeded to the scene examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The investigation reveals that on 16-8-2014 in the early hours the accused being the driver of Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing No.

AP.05 BM 0077 while coming towards Bhimavaram to Palakol drove the car in a rash and negligent manner at 5.30 AM and dashed PW1 and deceased

Rudraraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju near RTC garage by went to extreme 3 left margin of the road. PW1 sustained fractures and deceased received injuries to his head and lost conscious, the accused shifted them to

Bhimavaram hospitals admitted therein and later absconded. During the course of investigation the HC of Bhimavaram I Town PS arrested the accused and forwarded for remand. The SI of Bhimavaram I Town PS who took up investigation and verified the investigation done by their HC. On 27- 8-2014 the deceased was brought to his house with a view to provide better treatment and on 1-9-2014 he succumbed to his injuries at Kodetivari street,Narasayya Agraharam,Bhimavaram.

4. Basing on the report of PW6, the present crime was altered from section of law 337 and 338 IPC to 338 and 304-A IPC. The SI of police took up investigation held inquest in the presence of mediators and forwarded the dead body for autopsy and after getting MVI and PM report’s he filed charge sheet in this case.

5. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections.338,304-A IPC. The accused after receipt of summons appeared before this Court and received the copies furnished to him. He was examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation as alleged in the charge sheet pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 15 examined and Exs.P1 to 19 are marked.

P.W.1: S.Venkata Murali, PW2: Ch. Yesuraju, PW3: Ch. Rambabu, PW4:

Anisetti Mahesh, PW5: T.Satyanarayana, PW6: A.V.Srinivasaraju, PW7:

R.V.Shyamala, PW8: K.Chandra Sekhara Varma, PW9: Penmatsa

Suryanarayana, PW10: Ch. Sundararao, PW11:Dr.Rajarao, PW12: J.Krishna

Kishore, PW13: Ch.Venkata Ramana, PW14: G.S.Narayana,

PW15: R.VijayKumar

ExP1 : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1, Ex.P3:

161 Cr.PC statement of PW2, Ex.P4: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3, Ex.P5:

161 Cr.PC statement of PW4, Ex.P6: 161 CrPC statement of PW5, Ex.P7: 161 4

CrPC statement of PW8, Ex.P8: Scene observation report, Ex.P9: Inquest report, Ex.P10 Wound certificate of PW1, Ex.P11: Wound certificate of

Rudraraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, Ex.P12: PM report, Ex.P13:MVI report, Ex.P14: Hospital intimation, Ex.P15: Statement of PW1, Ex.P16:

FIR,Ex.P17: Rough sketch, Ex.P18:Death intimation, Ex.P19:Altered FIR

7. Upon closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., about incriminating evidence appeared against him from prosecution side witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence side evidence is closed.

8. Now the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the deceased Rudraraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju died due to the accident on the date of offence?

(ii) Whether PW1 sustained grievous injuries due to the accident on the date of offence?

(iii)Whether the accused was driver of the crime vehicle Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing No. AP.05 BM 0077,driven the same in rash and negligent manner resulted the accident?

(iv) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A and 338 of IPC?

9. Heard APP and counsel for defence. The counsel for defence submitted that none supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing was seized by the investigating officer and there is no incriminating material. The evidence of PWs 4 and 5 which is nothing but improvement admitted by the investigating officer in his cross examination.

10. Point No.i:

The case of the prosecution is that on 16-8-2014 at 5.30 AM when the deceased Rudraraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju and PW1 were proceeding towards left margin of the road near RTC garage,Bhimavaram, the accused driver of the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner came extreme left margin and dashed them. As a result, they both sustained injuries. The statement of PW1 was recorded in hospital and registered the present crime.

However the deceased who discharged on 27-8-2014 with a view to shift him 5 for better treatment succumbed to his injuries on 1-9-2014 at 6 PM for which the section of law was altered from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC.

11. Let us see the evidence of prosecution to show the result of the accident on the date of evidence. The 1st witness on behalf of the prosecution is PW1 who is defacto complainant and one of the injured sustained injuries in the accident on the date of offence. His evidence shows when he was in RTC depot he was hit by vehicle immediately he went unconscious and sustained injuries to his left leg and he was treated in

Bhimavaram hospitals. According to him he do not know anything and his signature was obtained by police. This witness was turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution except the accident and its result.

However prosecution further examined PW6 who is the relative of the deceased. His evidence shows coming to know about the accident,he rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to the hospital and there they were treated for their injuries. While undergoing treatment the injured succumbed to his injuries on 1-9-2014. His evidence shows the result of the accident is the death of the deceased on 1-9-2014 which remains unchallenged as the counsel for defence did not deny the said evidence. PW7 is wife of the deceased . She stated that on 16-8-2014 her husband went for walking and her brother PW6 called her on phone and informed that her husband was shifted to hospital and immediately she went there, till 27-8-2014 there is no improvement in the condition of her husband and when they made preparations to shift the deceased to Hyderabad he succumbed to his injuries. So her evidence shows the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. The said evidence was also unchallenged as the counsel for defence did not deny the said evidence. PW10 is the VRO who was present when the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased under the cover of Ex.P9 wherein the opinion of the panchayatdars shows deceased died due to the accident which is the contention of the prosecution. This evidence also remains unchallenged as the counsel for 6 defence did not elicit any material to corroborate the evidence of PW7 and

PW10.

12. The evidence of PW11 who is the medical officer of Bhimavaram hospitals treated the injured PW1 and also deceased Rudraraju Venkata

Satyanarayana Raju. The wound certificate of PW1 was marked as Ex.P10 wherein the injury No.5 in grievous in nature. The wound certificate of the injured Venkata Satyanaraya Raju when he attended treatment was also marked as Ex.P11 wherein the injuries are grievous in nature. So the medical evidence through PW11 sufficiently shows that both PW1 and deceased sustained grievous injuries due to the accident on the date of offence. PW12 is the medical officer who conducted Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and the postmortem certificate under Ex.P12 further shows the death of the deceased who succumbed to his injuries. In all the evidences of the above discussed witnesses coupled with the postmortem report sufficiently shows that the deceased Satyanarayana Raju died due to the accident on the date of offence. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.

13. Point No.ii : In view of the findings in Point No.1 as PW1 also sustained grievous injuries this point is also answered in favour of the prosecution.

14. POINT No.iii: The case of the prosecution in further is that accused who is driver of the crime vehicle driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulted the accident. To prove the said contention the evidence on behalf of prosecution is PWs 1 to 5 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence including the injured PW1 all the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW8 who is said to be the owner of the crime vehicle, he also turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PWs 6 and 7 are said to be the relatives of the deceased.

Their evidence shows the accused was present at the spot and also in the hospital and informed that he hit the deceased and injured. Their cross 7 examinations are also recorded as nil. Here they are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Similarly they did not state anything before the investigating officer about the statement of accused. If at all presumed that accused is driver of the crime vehicle there is no evidence on behalf of the prosecution how the accident was occurred. The necessary ingredients of rash and negligence on the part of the accused is not at all proved by the prosecution through any one of the prosecution witness including PW1. The motor vehicle inspector was examined as PW13 and his evidence is not suffice to prove the ingredients of rash and negligence on the part of the accused. PW15 who is the SI of Bhimavaram I Town PS deposed in his evidence that he verified the record of the crime vehicle and driving licence of accused but he did not seized the said document. However considering the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 accused being the driver of the crime vehicle , this court inclined to answer this point partly in favour of the prosecution and partly against the prosecution.

15. Point No.iv : In view of the findings in Points (i) to (iii) though there is evidence that due to the accident on the date of offence PW1 sustained grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to his injuries and the accused is driver of the crime vehicle absolutely prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the accused resulted this accident. Accordingly it failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

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

Sec.304-A and 338 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of February,2017.

Sd/- Smt.Sunkara Sridevi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : For defence PW1: S.Venkata Murali, PW2: Ch. Yesuraju, PW3: Ch. Rambabu, PW4: Anisetti Mahesh, PW5: T.Satyanarayana, PW6: A.V.Srinivasaraju, PW7: R.V.Shyamala, PW8: K.Chandra Sekhara Varma, PW9: Penmatsa Suryanarayana, PW10: Ch. Sundararao, PW11:Dr.Rajarao, PW12: J.Krishna Kishore, PW13: Ch.Venkata Ramana, PW14: G.S.Narayana, PW15: R.VijayKumar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For defence

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1, Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2, Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3, Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4, Ex.P6 : 161 CrPC statement of PW5, Ex.P7 : 161 CrPC statement of PW8, Ex.P8 : Scene observation report, Ex.P9 : Inquest report, Ex.P10: Wound certificate of PW1, Ex.P11: Wound certificate of Rudraraju Venkata Satyanarayana Raju, Ex.P12: PM report, Ex.P13: MVI report, Ex.P14: Hospital intimation, Ex.P15: Statement of PW1, Ex.P16: FIR,Ex.P17: Rough sketch, Ex.P18: Death intimation, Ex.P19: Altered FIR

ID/-SSD P.J.C.J cum J.F.C.M Bhimavaram /

CC/237/2015 Acquitted

SHO ,Akividu PS vs Nallagatchu Venkateswararo

23 Feb 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BHIMAVARAM.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: WEST GODAVARIC.C.NO.237/2015DATES OF Offence FilingAppearanceReleased Commencement Closure of Sentence On bail of trial trialof order 15-6-14 7-7-14 5-1-16 19-6-14 29-7-16 17-2-2017 23-2-2017

Explanation for delay:summons not served in time

Between

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S. … Complainant.

AND

Nallagatchu Venkateswararao, S/o. Mahankalirao, 65 years, Nimmathota, Gudivada of Krishna District

Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 5042..Accused

Crime No. 102/2014 of Akividu PS

OFFENCE :- Sec.304-A IPC

FINDING :- Accused is Found not Guilty.

Sd/-Smt.Sunkara Sridevi

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Bhimavaram.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, W.G.Eluru.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:: BHIMAVARAM.

PRESENT: Smt. Sunkara Sridevi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial I Class Magistrate.

On Thursday, twenty third (23rd ) day of February, Two thousand Seventeen(2017)

C.C NO.237/2015

Original C.C.No.681/2014 of II AJFCMC,BVRM.

Between:

State: Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S..… Complainant. AND

Nallagatchu Venkateswararao, S/o. Mahankalirao, 65 years, Nimmathota, Gudivada of Krishna District

Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 5042..Accused

This case is coming on 17-2-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N.V.S.Prasad, Advocate for accused upon hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter is having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This case is originally numbered as C.C.681/2014 on the file of II

Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Bhimavaram and transferred the

same to this Court as per the orders of the Hon’ble District Court, West Godavari, Eluru in Dis.No.2709 dated 17.04.2014 and renumbered as C.C.No.237/2015.

2. The Sub Inspector of Police, Akividu P.S., filed charge sheet in Cr.102/2014 under Sec.304-A IPC.

3. The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows: The deceased Padala Nageswararao along with Bollam Srinivasarao went to Balaji

Rice Mill on 15-6-2014 on his motor cycle and after completion of their work they returned. Bollam Srinivasarao was rider and deceased was pillion rider.

When they reached near YSR statue center at Akividu, the driver of the lorry bearing NO.AP 24 W 5042 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed motor cycle of Bollam Srinivasarao from back side. As a result both the rider and pillion rider fell on the road and sustained injuries.

Immediately they were shifted to Bhimavaram hospitals and while undergoing treatment Padala Nageswararao succumbed to his injuries.

Basing on the report, the HC of Akividu PS registered the present crime and investigated the matter. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He prepared a rough sketch and also held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On 19-6-2014 the accused was arrested and forwarded for remand. After getting MVI report and PM report and on completion of the investigation SI of Akividu PS filed charge sheet in this case.

4. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence under Sections.304-A IPC. The accused after receipt of summons appeared

before this Court and received the copies furnished to him. He was examined

under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. and he denied the accusation as alleged in the charge sheet pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 11 examined and Exs.P1 to 15 are marked.

P.W.1: Padala Subbarao, PW2: Bireddy Simhachalam, PW3: Bollam

Srinivasarao, PW4: Bhimavarapu Alam, PW5: V.Narasimham,

PW6: A.Naasimham, PW7: K.Raghava Murthy, PW8: K.Srinivasu,

PW9: Dr.S.ramanjaneyulu, PW10: R.Purushothamma,

PW11 :Ch. Sampath Kumar

ExP1 : Report of PW1 Ex.P2:161 Cr.PC statement of PW2, Ex.P3: 161

Cr.PC statement of PW3, Ex.P4:161 Cr.PC statement of PW4, Ex.P5:161 Cr.PC statement of PW5, Ex.P6:161 Cr.PC statement of PW6, Ex.P7: Inquest report,

Ex.P8: Scene observation report, Ex.P9: FIR, Ex.P10: Rough sketch,

Ex.P11:Driving licence, Ex.P12: copy of Record of the crime vehicle. Ex.P13: 6 photos along with CD, Ex.P14:Post Mortem report, Ex.P15: MVI report

7. Now the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the deceased Padala Nageswararao died due to the accident on the date of offence?

(ii) Whether the accused was driver of the crime vehicle which is a lorry bearing No.AP 24 W 5042 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner resulted the accident?

(iii) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sec.304-A of IPC?

8. Heard APP and counsel for defence.

9. Point No.i:

The case of the prosecution is that on 15-6-2014 when the deceased

Padala Nageswararao and Bollam srinivasarao went to Akividu on their personal work and when they were returning and reached near YSR statue center, Akividu, the accused driver of the crime vehicle coming on their back in excessive speed dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. As a result both the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle fell on the road and sustained injuries. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

To prove the contention of the prosecution that the deceased Padala

Nageswararao died due to the road accident on the date of offence and to prove the accusation against the accused, the burden is on the prosecution and to discharge the same the evidence on behalf of the prosecution is through PWs 1 to 11.

10. Let us see the evidence of PW1. He is none other than the defacto complainant who presented the report after the accident. His evidence shows deceased is his father who died in an accident on 15-6-2014 near YSR statue center,Akividu at 9 PM. Coming to know about the accident he rushed to the spot and shifted the injured to Bhimavaram in 108 ambulance and while under going treatment his father succumbed to his injuries. Through PW1 the report was marked as Ex.P1. The evidence of PW1 regarding the accident and the result remains unchallenged. The 2nd witness who is also the relative of the deceased stated that coming to know about the accident he went to the hospital and saw the dead body. The 3rd witness is the rider of the motor 5 cycle where the deceased was pillion rider, his evidence shows on the date of accident when he was coming from Akividu to Bhimavaram on his motor cycle along with deceased and reached near Doragaricheruvu, a lorry coming on their back hit their motor cycle, immediately he fell down and sustained injuries which was not noticed by him. So the evidence of PW3 similarly shows the accident and its result. To corroborate the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 prosecution further examined PW7 who is the panchayatdar present at the time of inquest and drafted Ex.P7 wherein the opinion of the panchayatdars that the accident was due to the hit caused by the lorry.

11. Here the counsel for defence who elicited that he drafted the inquest report basing on the instructions of police. Except that neither he denied the contents of the report nor the opinion of the panchayatdars that the accident was due to the hit caused by the lorry. So the evidence of PW7 sufficiently supported the contention of the prosecution regarding the accident and its result. PW9 is the medical officer who conducted PM examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P14 PM report to support the contention of the prosecution that the deceased

Nageswararao died due to the accident on the date of offence. Counsel for defence no where denied the said contention in order to discard the case of the prosecution. Considering the same point No.(i) is answered in favour of the prosecution.

12. Point No.ii : The case of the prosecution in further is that accused was driver of the crime vehicle who driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner coming on the back side of the motor cycle of PW3 hit the motor cycle resulted the accident. To prove the said contention on behalf of the prosecution PW3 who is the rider of the motor cycle was examined but as seen from his evidence shows he can not identify either the driver of the lorry or its number or the reasons for the accident. This witness was declared as hostile by the Learned APP marked his 161 Cr.PC statement. PWs 4,5 and 6 are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence, all the witnesses turned 6 hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. There remains the evidence of the investigating officer who registered the crime and investigated the matter and the MVI, who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report. But the same is not sufficient either to prove the identity of the accused or the way in which the accident was occurred in order to decide the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. In absence of any oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the prosecution, this point is answered against the prosecution.

13. POINT No.iii: In view of the findings in Points (i) and (ii) though there is evidence that the deceased Padala Nageswararao died due to the accident on the date of offence absolutely there is no material either to prove the identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle or his rash and negligence resulted the accident to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is also answered against the prosecution.

14. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under sec. 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C The bail bonds of accused, if any shall stands cancelled.

Dictated to the Stenographer-Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court this the 23rd day of February,2017.

Sd/-Smt.Sunkara Sridevi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDL. I. CLASS MAGISTRATE,

BHIMAVARAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENDE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution : For defence PW1 : Padala Subbarao, PW2 : Bireddy Simhachalam, PW3 : Bollam Srinivasarao, PW4 : Bhimavarapu Alam, PW5 : V.Narasimham, PW6 : A.Naasimham, PW7 : K.Raghava Murthy, PW8 : K.Srinivasu, PW9 : Dr.S.ramanjaneyulu, PW10: R.Purushothamma, PW11 : Ch. Sampath Kumar 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution : For defence

Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2, -nil- Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3, Ex.P4 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4, Ex.P5 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW5, Ex.P6 : 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6, Ex.P7 : Inquest report, Ex.P8 : Scene observation report, Ex.P9 : FIR, Ex.P10: Rough sketch, Ex.P11: Driving licence, Ex.P12: copy of Record of the crime vehicle. Ex.P13: 6 photos along with CD, Ex.P14: Post Mortem report, Ex.P15: MVI report

SD/-SSD

P.J.C.J cum J.F.C.M Bhimavaram

CC/123/2016 Acquitted

Mrs. Gular Sheik vs Nadimpalli Nagaraju

21 Feb 2017

OS/134/2015

Gadiraju Kamalavathi vs Vegesna Kousalya

21 Feb 2017

Order Record 807 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
A.T.C./10/2016	S.Anandharao vs Kolli Salomi alias Salomma	28 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/237/2015	SHO ,Akividu PS vs Nallagatchu Venkateswararo	23 Feb 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/246/2015	SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS. vs Kalidindi Venkatarma Raju	23 Feb 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/74/2015	SHO, Palakoderu PS vs Nandam Yesu alias Vasu	22 Feb 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/134/2015	Gadiraju Kamalavathi vs Vegesna Kousalya	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/123/2016	Mrs. Gular Sheik vs Nadimpalli Nagaraju	21 Feb 2017	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/186/2012	Bandreddy Trinagaveni vs MPDO	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/308/2011	Nandamuri Venkata Satyavathi vs Arava Amaravathi	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/122/2016	Balaji Ganesh Kumar vs Jampana Ramabadraraju	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/165/2016	Annam Sri Anand vs Bondada Vijayakumar	20 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/48/2016	SHO, Bhimavarm II town PS vs Jangam Rau	17 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/235/2015	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs Vallabaneni Siva	17 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/22/2016	SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS. vs Karepalli Benerjee	16 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/108/2015	Pala Ramesh vs Y.V.Subbarao	15 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/27/2015	SHO ,Akividu PS vs Bunga Yohan,	15 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/691/2006	Md. Khudsia Begum vs Amplolu Simhachalam	14 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/152/2016	P.Ramakrishnam Pullam raju vs K.Vijayalaxmi	13 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/181/2016	Smt.Chintalapalli Lakshmi Bhavani vs Smt.Chellaboyina Sita Bhavani	11 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/7/2016	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs Anyam Satyanarayana	11 Feb 2017	Order	—
CC/99/2016	SHO, Veeravasaram PS vs Chabathula Srinivasarao	11 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/148/2016	Bhusarapu Ramakrishna vs Adabala Krishnamurthy	09 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/233/2015	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs Chinta Srinivasarao alias Srinu	09 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/277/2015	Kodidasu Srinu vs Dhadi Sambamurthy	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/123/2015	Gubbala Ravikumar vs Gandhamani Shivaram	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/232/2015	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs T.N.V.Satyanarayana	08 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/30/2016	SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS. vs Althi Samba Murthy	07 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/2/2016	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs Anisetty Mutyalarao	06 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/117/2016	Pullabhotla Simhadri Apparao vs Chella Venkateswararao	06 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/40/2015	Nallagangula Shanthi vs Birudugadda Peddiraju	03 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/181/2015	Sagiraju Satyanarayanaraju vs Muppidi Narayanareddy	02 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/68/2016	Baajanki Ramatulasi vs Pasupuleti Janakirao	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/142/2007	Reddy and Reddy Imports and Exports, Bhimavaram vs Adabala Chiranjeevi	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
CC/239/2015	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs Runkana Srihari	01 Feb 2017	Judgment	—
OS/222/2011	Nimmala Jansi Maha Lakshmi vs Ganisetti Gangayya	31 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/198/2014	SriReddy Siva Shankar Balaji Kumar vs Ms. Sri Sri Laxmi Trader s	31 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/323/2011	The Branch Manager, Asmitha Microfin Ltd., Bhimava vs Manda Srinivasa Gupta	31 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/62/2015	Penumaka Kamalamma vs Patta Mary Rajya Lakshmi	30 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/171/2015	Chitarkula Ganesh vs Pithani Anuradha	30 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/178/2016	SHO, Bhimavarm II Town PS vs Chabattula Mosen	30 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
MC/22/2016	Thadipudi Swarna Jy othi vs Thantipoodi Vinod Kumar	28 Jan 2017	Order	—
CC/177/2013	Sodabattula Venkata Siddeswara Rao vs Chukka Phanikumar	25 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/44/2015	Lunker Pukh Raj Jain vs Polisetti Prasad	24 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/368/2011	Chintalapati Uma Rani vs Pothuri Gopala Krishnam Raju	23 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/9/2016	S.H.O. AKIVIDU P.S. vs Olipili Prasad	23 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/274/2015	SHO Kalla PS vs Didla Nagaraju alias Nagulu	19 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/1/2016	Pala Visweswararo vs Donga Rangarao	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/238/2015	Gudavalli Harry Rose vs Gudavali Francis	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/80/2016	SH O, Palakoderu PS vs Chabathina Srinu	18 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/70/2016	Tadi Vijaya Lakshmi vs Neelapu Naresh	17 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/111/2015	Panchadara Suryanarayana vs Gandamani Sivaram	17 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/163/2015	Yalam Srinivasarao vs Kasilanka Praveenkumar	17 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/141/2008	Bhimavarapu Suresh Kumar vs Moturi Durgamma	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/221/2014	Mygapula Naga Bhushana Rao vs Sarapalli Prasad Babu	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/255/2015	SHO,Bhimavarm R PS vs K.arthaka Prabhudasu	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/264/2015	SHO BHIMAVARAM RU RAL P.S. vs Gummspu Yesudasu	11 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/55/2016	SHO, Bhimavarm II town PS vs Anipe Gopi	09 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/184/2015	Padala Sudhakarreddy vs Yerragopu Venkateswaraerao	09 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
MC/36/2014	Gopu Varalakshmi vs Gopu Satyanadhan Naidu alias Satyanarayana Naidu	07 Jan 2017	Order	—
A.T.C./2/2010	Gedela Yakobu vs Gedela John	06 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/128/2016	Thota Naga Vijayakumar vs Kudaka Udaya Kumar	05 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/143/2016	Kot hapalli Venkata Satyanar ayanaraju vs Thotakura Bapiraju	04 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/139/2016	Meduri Rajasekhar vs Kandula Ramakrishna	03 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
OS/17/2016	Korrakuti Nageswararao vs Gadireddy Padmavathi	02 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/258/2015	SHO BHIMAVARAM RU RAL P.S. vs Talluri Suvarnaraju	02 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
CC/348/2011	Ms Vijaya Steels, a Proprietory Firm, rep., by it vs P.Suresh Babu	02 Jan 2017	Judgment	—
RCC/6/2003	Teeparthi Durgarao vs Padamati Satyavathi	30 Dec 2016	Order	—
CC/273/2015	SHO Kalla PS vs Enuguthala Srinu	30 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/31/2016	SHO, Bhimavarm II town PS vs Md.Khadar Mastan	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/53/2008	Reddy and Reddy Imports and Exports,rep by its M.P vs Rudra Raju Venkata Narasimha Padma Raju	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/254/2006	Reddy and Reddy Imports and Exports, Bhimavaram vs Chelluboina Murali Mohana Rao alias Murali	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/259/2015	SHO BHIMAVARAM RU RAL P.S. vs Yeleti Rajababu	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
MC/19/2016	Padamati Pavani vs Padamati Sureshbabu	29 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/8/2014	Dandu Venkata Subbamma vs Alluri Subbaraju alias velivarru Subbaraju	28 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/58/2016	Vallabhu Venkata krishna Tataji vs Ramisetti Vemkata Satyanarayana	24 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/34/2016	Chegondi Veera Venkata Subbarao vs Mallula Satyanarayana	21 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/161/2015	Anupoju Naga Venkata Rajarao vs Vardhineedi Durga Bhavani	21 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/245/2015	SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS. vs Ande Srinivasarao	21 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/124/2011	Alluri Srinivasa Raju vs Juluri Venkata Raja Ratnarao	20 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/234/2016	Gangiraju Srinivasarao vs Jakkamsetti Sathemma	20 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/147/2015	Muvva Sadrik vs Movv John	19 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
MC/52/2014	Nadakuditi Sarasvathi vs Nadakuditi Nagamalleswararao	19 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
ELECOP/4/2014	Kandula Nagamani vs Manne Varalakshmi	19 Dec 2016	Order	—
CC/108/2015	Yarra Veera Venkata Subrahmanayam, vs TAdi Mahender	15 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/241/2015	SHO ,Akividu PS vs Katchari Venkatarao	15 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
RCC/2/2012	Mandarapu Syama Sundara Babu vs Sanka Sita Naga Ratnam	14 Dec 2016	Order	—
CC/290/2015	SHO ,Undi PS vs P.V.V.S.Swamy	14 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/116/2012	Dantuluri Pandurangaraju vs Rudraraju Lingamurthy Raju	13 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
OS/274/2010	Baswani Vijaya vs Jalla Maha Lakshmi	13 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/84/2016	SHO,. Undi PS vs Kolli Yesuratnam	09 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/300/2015	Veeravalli Purnimma vs V.Benakhar	09 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
ELECOP/5/2014	Dokku Venkata Lakshmi vs Illa sita Mahalakshmi	09 Dec 2016	Order	—
A.T.C./1/2013	Karipalli Wilson Joshi Babu vs Yallabandi Sambasiva Rao	08 Dec 2016	Order	—
OS/116/2014	Chinnala Venkata Lakshmi alias Areti Venkata Laksh vs VsaRETI sURYAKANTHAM	08 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/82/2015	SHO Undi PS vs Guthula Satyanarayana	07 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/82/2016	SHO,. Undi PS vs Guthula Satyanarayana	07 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/110/2015	Taragalla Srinivasarao vs Thota Girishbabu	06 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/24/2016	SHO, BHIMAVARAM I TOWN PS. vs Gadham Veera Bhadrarao	03 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/63/2015	SHO Kalla PS vs Kandula Srinivas	03 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/276/2015	S.H.O. Kalla PS vs S.V.S.S.Bhaskar	03 Dec 2016	Judgment	—
CC/113/2013	SI of police vs Sundaramurthy pathima priya Darsini	02 Dec 2016	Judgment	—

Showing 100 of 807 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Feb 2017		33
Jan 2017		34
Dec 2016		41
Nov 2016		59
Oct 2016		28
Sep 2016		49
Aug 2016		39
Jul 2016		40
Jun 2016		40
May 2016		21
Apr 2016		44
Mar 2016		28

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., handled?

Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., has handled 830 court orders since 2015 at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram. The average disposal rate is 40 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., hear?

Based on available records, Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram.

Where is Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., currently posted?

Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram, West Godavari, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., dispose cases?

Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., disposes approximately 40 cases per month, based on 830 orders handled over their tenure at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram.

Since when is Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., serving?

Smt.Sunkara Sridevi,B,.Sc.,B.L., has been serving at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram since 2015.

Case Types

CC 53%

OS 32%

MC 8%

A 3%

STC 2%

RCC 2%

ELECOP 1%

EP 0%

Posting History

May 2015 — Feb 2017

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram · 830 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

Dr B.Lakshmi Narayana

III ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

884 orders

Muthavarapu Sudharani

Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.

90 orders

Smt.C.Ramya

Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judicial Magist...

0 orders

← View all judges at III ADJ Court Complex, Bhimavaram