Sri T. Bhaskar

APNE0A0077902021 1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: NELLORE

Present: Sri T.Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the Sixteen (16 th ) day of April, 2025.

C.C.No. 6733 of 20 21

State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Indukurupeta Police Station.

.. Complainant.

// V E R S U S //

1. Sirivella Kesavulu, S/o. Ramachandraiah, Aged 38 years, Indukurupeta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Sirivella Suseelamma, W/o. Ramachandraiah, Aged 65 years, Indukurupeta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3. Sirivella Ramachandraiah, S/o. Subbaramaiah, Aged 75 years, Indukurupeta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

4. Jarugumalli Anusha, W/o. Satheesh, Aged 36 years, Allurus Village and Mandal,

SPSR Nellore District. .. Accused No. 1 to 4

This case is coming on 07-04-2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri Ch. Ramesh Advocate for accused No. 1 to 4 upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following Judgment today i.e., 16-04-2025 which is as follows :

APNE0A0077902021 2

J U D G M E N T

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Indukurupeta Police Station, SPSR

Nellore District filed charge sheet against the Accused No. 1 to 4 in Crime No.

153/2021 of Indukurupeta Police Station for the offence punishable Under Sec.

498-A and Sec. 3 and 4 of D P Act.

2) On 25.05.2013 LW.2/ performed the marriage of LW1/. with A1 in presence of both side elders at Sri Narasimha Swamy Temple Indukurpet as per the Hindu

Tradition. At the time of marriage on demand of the accused family; LW.2 & her husband presented dowry about Rs.5,00,000/-and abe arranged Household articles to the accused. Rs. 10,000/- gave to A4 as Adapadachu lanchanam. Marriage expenses are also expended by LW2 th her husband. A.1 studied B.Tech, degree and he is doing cultivation for livelihood. After the marriage they lived happily sometime only. Then A.1 started to suspect LW.1 in every issue and then started to harass her. A.2 to A.4 are also harassed LW.1 mentally and physically by demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parental house withoot hearing the words of LW.1. One year after the marriage: A.1 left LW.1 at her parental house and he came back to his village filed a suit before the Honourable Court, Nellore for divorce. Some period after both side elders conducted mediations between both families and left LW.1 with A.1. Thereafter also Al lived with LW.1 happily only same period and then A. 1 to A.4 started to harass LW1 demanding her for additional dowry. While so, on the morning of 24.08.2021 at about 09.00 hours A1 to A4 beat

LW.1 with hands by demanding her to bring additional dowry. But LW 1 informed that my father is no more and from where my mother brings money to them. On that

A.1 caught hold of the hair of LW. 1, cut the hair and disfigured her and dishonoured her. Then all they threw LW.1 out from thes house. When the mother and other sisters of LW.1 came to the house of the accused and questioned the accused about their acts. A.1 to A4 threatened them that if LW.1 brings additional dowry they will allow her for family life.

On 28.08.2021 at 10.30 hours, basing on the report of LW.1/, LW7/ registered a case in Cr. No. 153/2021 U/Sec 498-A IPC and sec 3 & 4 DP act and took up

APNE0A0077902021 3 investigation. During the course of investigation LV.7 examined LW’s. 1 to 6 and recorded their statements U/Sec. 161(3)OPC, inspected the scene of offencs, prepared rough sketch of the offence.

3)This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec. 498-A and Sec.

3 and 4 of D P Act against accused No. 1 to 4.

4)On appearance of Accused No. 1 to 4 the case copies were furnished to them as per Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5) Accused No. 1 to 4 are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. He denied the offence. Then, Charge for the offence U/sec. 498-A and Sec. 3 and 4 of D P Act.

against accused No. 1 to 4 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PW.1 to PW.5 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.

7)After closure of prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating material against accused, examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed.

8)Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for state and learned defence Advocate for the accused.

9)Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

accused for the offence under Secs. 498-A of IPC

and Sec. 3 and 4 of D P Act. beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10)POINT:-

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, coupled with Exhibits P-1 to P-7, is in support of the prosecution case, and

APNE0A0077902021 4 made out the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, and therefore, the accused are liable for punishment under the above section of law.

Learned defence counsel argued that the case of the accused is of total denial of the case of the prosecution, and the learned defence counsel further submitted that the accused never harassed PW-1/de-facto-complainant at any point of time, and never demanded any additional dowry or dowry, and that she is not residing with the accused since a long time, and that the question of harassment either physically or mentally does not arise, and that she foisted a false case against the accused and, nobody stated against the accused, and therefore, the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

The brief evidence of the prosecution is as follows:-

i)Though PW1 to PW4 are examined. Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked on behalf of the prosecution to prove its case. PW1 to PW4 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW1 deposed that she is resident of Indukupeta Village and

Mandal. LW2 is her mother, LW3 and LW4 are her sisters, she know LW5 and LW6.

A1 is her husband (No more), A2 is her mother in law, A3 is her father in law, A4 is her sister in law. Her marriage performed A1 at Narasimha Swamy temple, at

Indukurpet on 25.05.2013 immediately after the marriage she joined with the A.1 thereafter some disputes arose in between her and A.1, she came to her parental home in her parental home with the instance of her parents. She put a signature on some white paper, except that she do not know anything about this case, police did not examined him. Witness identify her signature on the report, dated:28.08.2021.

Ex.p1 is her signature on the report, dated:28.08.2025. she do not know the contents thereon.

ii) PW2 deposed that she is resident of Navuru Village. She do not know

Lw.5 and lw.6. A.1 is her son in law (No More), A.2 and A.3 are parents of A.1, A.4 sister of A.1. Pw.1 marriage performed with A.1 at Narasimha Swamy temple on 25.05.2013 immediately after the marriage Pw.1 joined with the A.1 thereafter some disputes arose in between Pw.1 and A.1, Pw.1 came to her home except that she do not know anything about this case, police did not examined him.

APNE0A0077902021 5 iii) PW3 deposed that she is resident of Indukurupeta Village and Mandal.

PW1 and LW4 are his sisters, PW2 is her mother, she do not know LW5 and LW6.

A1 is husband of PW1(No more). A2 and A3 are parents of A1, A4 sister of A1.

PW1 marriage performed with A.1 at Narasimha Swamy temple on 25.05.2013 immediately after the marriage Pw.1 joined with the A.1 thereafter some disputes arose in between Pw.1 and A.1, Pw.1 came to her home except that she do not know anything about this case, police did not examined him.

iv) PW4 deposed that she is resident of Nawabpeta. PW1 and PW3 are his sisters, PW2 is her mother, she do not know LW5 and LW6. A1 is husband of

PW1(No more). A2 and A3 are parents of A1, A4 sister of A1. PW1 marriage performed with A.1 at Narasimha Swamy temple on 25.05.2013 immediately after the marriage Pw.1 joined with the A.1 thereafter some disputes arose in between

Pw.1 and A.1, Pw.1 came to her home except that she do not know anything about this case, police did not examined him.

v)PW1 to PW4 completely turned hostile, they deposed they do not know anything about the facts of this case. There is no incriminating material against accused from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4. In view of above facts, circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against Accused. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of Accused and against the prosecution.

vi) PW5/Y. Bhaskar Rao previously worked as Assistant Sub-Inspector of

Police, Balaji Nagar P.S. deposed that on 28.08.2021 at about 10.30. AM while he was present in the police station PW1 came to the police station gave a report then he registered Ex.P1 as in Cr. No.153/2021 under Sec. 498-A IPC, 3 & 4 DP Act and issued a FIR. The original FIR send to Hon'ble Court. And copies of FIR to all concern authorities. Original FIR sent to Hon'ble court and he informed to his superior officials about the registration of the crime and he took up investigation. He examined Pw.1 and recorded in the police station, on the same he went to the scene of offence situated Kummara Street, Indukurpet in the scene of offence, he secured Pw.2 to Pw.4 and Lw.5 and Lw.6 examined and recorded their statements and also he observe the scene and prepared the rough sketch. Thereafter Lw.8 conducted further investigation, on 10.09.2021 issued 41-A Cr.p.c notice to accused

APNE0A0077902021 6 no.1 to 4 and same day release on bail. On 25.10.2021 Lw.8 filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4.

In order to establish the charge under Section 498-A I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove that the husband or relative of the husband of a woman (in this case (PW-1) subjected her to cruelty. As seen from Section 498-A I.P.C., ‘cruelty’ means –

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Vii) In this case, the prosecution has proved the marriage in between PW-1 and A-1, but failed to prove about the harassment meted out by PW-1 from the hands of the accused and also beating her by the accused, as the prosecution failed to examine the corroborative witnesses, and as the witnesses who are examined did not support the case of prosecution. Further, the prosecution failed to establish their case in respect of demand of additional dowry by all the accused and providing of dowry during the marriage to A-1.

viii)On a careful perusal of the entire evidence, no case is made out against the accused as nobody stated with regard to the harassment or demanding of any dowry/money by the accused from PW-1 at any point of time and also about ill- treatment and beating. As per Exhibit P-1 report, it is also clear that there was no such physical and mental harassment by the accused.

ix)The learned defence counsel submitted that the accused are innocent persons and they are no way concerned with the allegations, and, therefore, the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the accused.

11. In the result, accused No. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of D P Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No. 1 to 4

APNE0A0077902021 7 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of the

Judgment as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (contract basis) of this court, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this 16 th day of Aprial, 2025.

Sd/-T.Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:

P.W.1 :Ch. Eswari Devi P.W.2 :Kameswaramma P.W.3 :S. Vasathi P.W.4 :Prameela P.W.5 :Y. Bhaskar Rao

Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution:

Ex.P.1 : Ex.P1 is signature on the report. Ex.P.2 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 Ex.P.6 :Original FIR Ex.P.7 :Rough sketch.

Material Objects marked on behalf of prosecution: Nil. Witnesses examined on behalf of defence: None. Exhibits marked on behalf of defence: Nil.

Sd/-T.Bhaskar

IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

APNE0A0026332017 1

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

NELLORE

Present: Sri T. Bhaskar, IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Wednesday, this the Sixteenth (16th) day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 419 of 2017

The State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Indukurpeta Police Station. .. Complainant.

Versus:

1. Punamalli Satheesh Chandra Reddy, S/o Rajasekhar Reddy, Aged about 24 Years, Indukurupeta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Punamalli Ramana Reddy (died) S/o Veera Swamy Reddy, Aged about 80 Years, Indukurupeta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

3. Punamalli Sampurnamma (died) W/o Ramana Reddy @ Ramanaiah, Aged about 75 Years, Indukurupeta Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

This case is coming on 07-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Ch.Malyadri on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel Sri A. Nagendra Sai for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The State Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurpeta Police Station

Nellore, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 61/2017 against the accused for the offence under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC (herein after referred as IPC), alleging as follows:

APNE0A0026332017 2

a) On 01.07.2006 the accused A1 is the minor, at that time the accused

A2 is the guardian of A1. On 01.07.2006 the accused A2 selling the lands of At in survey NO 507 an extent of 0.65 cents to LW1/Punamalli Rama Chandraiah an amount of Rs. 71,500/- and LW1 obtained sale deed agreement from A1 to A3 and got registered in Sub-register office Indukurpet vide document No. 813/2006 After minority the accused A1 and filed a suit in the 1 Additional Junior Civil Judge court

Nellore. On 17.03.2016 the Honourable Ist Additional Junior civil judge issued judgment to A1 as the result the suit is decreed with costs and the registered sale deed dated 01.07.2006 bearing document Number 813 is here by cancelled vide

OS NO 119/2014. Further LW1 filed an appeal in the district and sessions Judge

court Nellore the cases are pending in the Honorable Court. On 09.06.2017 at 10.00 hours the accused A1 to A3 trespassed into the agricultural lands of LW1 and cutting the 12 coconut trees with the help of cutting machine and axes and damaged. LW2 to 5 witnessed the occurrence. As per the evidence of the witnesses the accused At to A3 only participated at the occurrence The other persons are not participating the occurrence, they are shown to that incident.

b) On 09.06.2017 at 10.00 hours, LW1 came to Indukurupet Police station and presented a report to LW8/P. Srinivasa Raju, HC, Indukurupeta PS. LW8 registered the same as a case in Crime No: 61/2017, U/sec. 447, 427 r/w 34 of

IPC of Indukurupeta Police Station and submitted FIR’s to all concerned officers.

LW8 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch of the scene, examined LWs 1 to 5 and recorded their statements U/s 161(3) Cr. PC.

During course of investigation on 21.08.2017 at 10.30 hours the accused A2 & A3 were surrendered before the Honourable 4th Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class, Nellore and obtained bail, on 08.09.2017 at 10.30 hrs the accused A1 was

Surrendered before the Honourable 4th Additional Judicial Magistrate of 1st class court, Nellore and obtained bail. After completed investigation LW9/J. Balarami

Reddy, SI of Police, Indukurupeta PS filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to

A3 U/s 447,427 r/w 34 IPC. In view of above investigation, he is of the opinion that there is sufficient material to proceed against the accused A1 to A3 for the offences

APNE0A0026332017 3 punishable U/s 447, 427 r/w 34 IPC. Hence he is here with submitting this investigation report for your Honours consideration and further proceedings.

3. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC. The contents of the offence were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

10.The crux of the prosecution case is that defacto complaint having 2

Acrs land at Indukurupeta that land he raised cocunet tree and banana trees on 06-06-2017 at about 9-30 a.m or 10.00 a.m he went to settyvarikandriga for attend funeral his cousin father LW2 made phone call to him he inform that A1and A3 and

APNE0A0026332017 4 some unknown person trespassed his field and cut cocunet trees with help of cutting machine and also axe he immediately came to his field he noticed nearly 13 cocunet trees were cut and also cut the bananas on the same day went to police station gave report against accused PW6 registered the case against accused in the course of investigation he examined PW1 to PW5 and Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 are marked.

11.It is the evidence of PW1, deposed that he having 2 acrs land he raised crop of coconut trees and bananas trees on 06-06-2017 he went to settyvary kandriga for attending feneral of his cousine father PW2 made phone call to him he inform that A1 to A3 some other person cut the cocunet trees and bananas trees with healp of cutter and axe ,he immediatly came to his field he noticed that cut the 13 cocunet trees and banans trees fell down on ground. On the same day he went to Indukurupeta Police Station and gave report against A1 to A3.

12. During the cross examination of PW11 Police examined him after 3 dayas from the incident except police never police examined him .futher admitted that he not gave report any other person except A1 to A3 and also adnitted that civil disputed between A1 and PW1 and A1 also got injunction in favour of him i.e PW1.

13. In the evidence of PW2 he stated at about 7 years back he noticed that

A1to A3 and some other person trespassed into PW1 land cut the coconut trees and bananas trees with help of the cutting machine and axe immediately he informed to PW1 through phone thereafter pw1 went to police station gave report againest A1 to A3.

APNE0A0026332017 5

14. During the cross examination he admitted that he noticed some unknown persons cut the coconut trees but A1 present at the time futher admitted that PW1 is his brother. Further admitted that pw1 residing at Athmakur since he ataining age of 04 years .

15. Further defence counsel argue that PW1 is a not eye witness of the incident PW1 gave fals report against accused due to previousely civil dispute between the parties PW1 also admitted that A1 got injunction against PW1 and A2 and A3 regarding of said dispute land. Further PW2 stated during cross examination he noticed some unknown person cut the trees only A1 present at the time furthe admitted that PW1 is his brother and also admitted that A1 residing at athmakur since he age of 4 years. Hence evidance of PW2 not belivebla version he is interersted witness of this case.

16. Furthe prosecution examined PW3 he stated PW1 land his adjucent land at about 7 years back while he was working in his field he noticed that A1to

A3 and some other person trespassed PW1 land cut the cocunut trees with help of cutting mechain and axe immediately he informd to PW1.

17. During the cross examination he stated he noticed some person cut the trees A1to A3 was present at the time, police examined him after 3 days from the incident, he further admitted that distance between scen offence is 500 meeters further admitted that civil dispute between the parties and also he knows that A1 got injunction infover of him.

APNE0A0026332017 6

18. Prosecution examined PW4 he stated on 09-06-2017 at about 10-00am he was present at Indukurupeta LW8 calld him and LW7, LW8 asked them to act as mediator they are agreedm same act as mediator, they went to field of

PW1 they observed that scene he noticed that cut the 12 cocunut trees LW8 took the photograph and LW8 prepared scene observation report and attested the scen observation report.

19. During the cross examination he admitted that pw1 is brother furthe admitted that he do not know whose field he obseved the scen obsevation scene.

20. Prosecution further examined PW5 who is investigation officer he deposed that he receive report from pw1 thereafter he registered the report and FIR sent the concerned officials in the course of investigation he examind the PW1 at

Police Station and record the statement thereafter he went to scene offence along with pw4 and lw7 situate at pw1 field he prepared scene observation report in presence of mediator i.e PW4 and LW7 and he observe the scene prepared rough sketch there after he examind the PW2, LW3, PW3 and LW5 and record their statement thereafter he transfered LW9 verify his investigation filed charge sheet aginest accused.

21. During the cross examination he admitted that civil dispute between the parties furthe admitted that he did not verify the documents relatin to who are posession in said disputed land and also he did not seized any legs of the cocunet

APNE0A0026332017 7 trees ans bananas trees and also admitted that he did not seized the any document relating to who are the possesion of said disput land.

22. Finally appreciation evidance on record as per the evidence of PW1 gave report on 06-06-2017 the version of Investigation Officer i.e PW5 he receive report from 09-06-2017 there is ambiguity date of report whether the pw1 gave report on 06-06-2017 or not. Further observe that evidence of pw2 and pw3 .pw2 are not beliveble. The version evidence of pw2 he stated A1 to A3 present at scene of offence some other person cut the cocunet trees and also admitted that A1 got injunction in favour him and also A1 residing at athmakur since age of 4 years. The version pw3 he present at his field distance of 500 meters from scene of offence.

No way chance to clear visible to who are cut the trees. Further admitted that he observed that A1 to A3 present at the time some other person cut the trees and also further admitted that civil dispute between the parties and A1 got injunction in favour of him. Hence the court not believable evidence of pw2 and pw3 further observed the evidence pw4 who is mediators he stated pw5 asked him act as mediators he agreed act as mediators finally he stated he do not know whose land cut the trees. Further observe that evidence of investigation officer he admitted that he did not seized any legs of trees further admitted that he did not verify the document who are the possession of dispute land finally 3 days delay register the

FIR and also not explain the reason for delay in EX.P3.

23. Finally evidence of prosecution not believable version and prosecution fail to prove ingredients of Section 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code

APNE0A0026332017 8 1860 prosecution fail to elicit the evidence against accuse no 1to 3. Finally accused entitled acquittal for benefit of doubt.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (contract basis), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-T.Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW1: Ramachandraiah-None- PW2: Seenaiah PW3: Chennaiah PW4: L. Venku Reddy PW5: P. Srinivasa Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1: Report of PW1 Ex.P-2: Scene observation report Ex.P-3: Original FIR Ex.P-4: Rough-sketch

For Defence: Nil

MATERIEL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

Sd/-T.Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nellore.

APNE0A0026612019

CC No. 1575/2019

Dt: 15.04.2025. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: NELLORE

Present: Sri. T. Bhaskar,

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the (15 th ) day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 1575 of 20 19

The State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nellore Rural Circle. .. Complainant.

Versus:

Sandu Srinivasulu, S/o.Audaiah, Aged 35 years, R/o. Potlapudi Village, TP Guduru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Driver of Tipper bearing No. AP 26 TE 3922 .. Accused.

1. Shaik Riyaz, S/o. Nazoor Basha, Aged 18 years, Samatha Nagar, Buja Buja Nellore, Nellore City.

2. Shaik Fayaz, S/o. Masthan, Aged 18 years, Samatha Nagar, Buja Buja Nellore, Nellore City.

3. Shaik Shanawaz, S/o. Chandbasha Aged 16 years, Samatha Nagar, Buja Buja Nellore, Nellore City. ...Deceased No. 1 to 3

This case is coming on01-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the

APNE0A0026612019

CC No. 1575/2019

Dt: 15.04.2025. 2

learned Counsel Sri P. Sudheer Babu for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The State Inspector of Police, Venkatachala Satram Police Station

Nellore, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 20/2019 against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and 134 r/w 177 of MV Act (herein after referred as IPC), alleging as follows:

a) On 17.02.2019 at about 07.30 hours on Venkatachala Satram Village to

Kasumuru Village BT road near Veeranna Kanpur Village, V. Satram mandal accused drove Tipper bearing No. AP 26 TE 3922 in a rash and negligent manner while playing from Kasumur side and hit motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 26

BH 6108 proceeding to Islampet Village, V Satram mandal. As a result of which the rider of the motorcycle. Deceased No. 1 and pillion rider D2 and D3 received fatal injuries and died on the spot. The accused abandoned the tipper there itself and fled away. LW10 witnessed the occurrence.

b) On 17.02.2019 at 21.00 hours LW1/Shaik Chandbasha gave report to

LW24/A. Siva Krishna Reddy, SI of Police, V. Satram PS and the latter registered the same as the case and issued Express Firs. LW26/G.L. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of

Police, Nellore Rural took up investigation into this case by its grave nature. During the course of investigation LW26 inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators. LW’s 12 and 13 under observation report. LW26 snapped the scene of offence with digital camera and prepared rough sketch. LW26 examined LW’s 1 to 3 and LW10 and recorded their statement. LW26 held inquest over the dead body of

D1 in the presence of panchyaths. LW’s 12, 13 and 14 and sent the dead body for autopsy. LW26 endorsed the dead bodies of D2 and D3 to LW’s 24 and 25 for holding inquest. LW24 examined LW’s 4 to 6 and recorded their statements. LW24 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.2 and No.3 in the presence of

Panchyathdars.

APNE0A0026612019

CC No. 1575/2019

Dt: 15.04.2025. 3

c) During the course of investigation on 26.02.2019 LW11/Thuraka

Peddaiah being the owner of crime vehicle produced the vehicle records before

LW26. LW26 examined LW11 and recorded his statement. LW26 arrested the accused on 13.03.2019 and forwarded the accused before this Court. Subsequently the accused enlarged on bail. LW26 got the crime vehicle tipper inspected by the

Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nellore. Accused did not inform the accident to police by violating the provisions of sections 134 r/w 177 of MV Act. Hence the charge sheet.

3. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under Section 304-A of

IPC and 134 r/w 177 of MV Act.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC and 134 r/w 177 of MV Act. The contents of the offence were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and 134 r/w 177 of MV Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?”

APNE0A0026612019

CC No. 1575/2019

Dt: 15.04.2025. 4

10. POINT:-

Under Sec.304-A IPC. Constution as alleged of offence under sec.304-A IPC against

accused the prosecution established the connection of accused and

crime vehicle, thereupon folloiwng ingredients are to prove constute

offence under sec.304-A IPC.

1. There must death of person in a question

2. Death must be have been caused by the accused

3. Death must have been caused due to rash or negligence act of accused.

4.The act of the accused not amount culpelbel homicide

a) The evidence of PW1 he stated on 07.02.2019 deceased no.1 to 3 went to materanal grand mother house situated at kasumur village in motor cycle bearing number Ap.26.BH.6108 at about 07.00PM he made phone call to deceased no.1 at the time some unknown person lifted phone he stated met with an accident at kanupur village then immediately himself and his brother and his relative went to kanupur village he noticed deceased no.1 to 3 received multiple injuries laying on the raod with motorcycle also full damaged condition, thereafter he came to know one tipper came in opposite direction hit the deceased motor cycle, deceased no.1 to 3 fell down on the road received bleeding injury died on the spot.

b) The evidence of Pw.2 to Pw.6 same line content of the Pw.1.

c)The perused the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.6 they are not eye witness of the entire incident they came to scene of offence after taken the incident. Thereafter they came to know one un known lorry came to opposite direction of deceased vehicle dashed the deceased vehicle, except that they do not know anything.

d) The evidence of PW7, who is mediator of scene observation report and

Inquest deceased no.1, stated on 17.02.2019 at about 09.15 PM, Lw.26 called him and Lw.13 to the police station informed them to act as mediator same is agreed himeself and Lw.13, they went to scene of offence situated at Venkatachalam to kasumuru road along with lw.26. They observed the scene lw.26 prepared the scene observation report they duly attested the scene observation report. On the next day at about 10.00AM himself and Lw.14, Lw.15 present in the ACSR, Medical College,

Mortury Room, Nellore. Lw.26 asked them to act as mediator Inquest of the

APNE0A0026612019

CC No. 1575/2019

Dt: 15.04.2025. 5

deadbody of the deceased same is agreed. Lw.26 conducted the Inquest over the deadbody of the deceased no.1 and prepared Inquest report and duly attested himself and Lw.14, Lw.15.

e) The evidence of Pw.8 who is mediator of the Inquest of the deceased no.3 he stated on 18.02.2019 at about 11.30 to 12.00AM himeslf and Lw.19,Lw.21 present in the GGH, Mortury Room, Nellore. Lw.25 asked them to act as a mediator of the conducted Inquest of the deadbody of the deceased no.3. the same is agreed,

Lw.25 conducted and prepared Inquest report of deceased no.3, they duly attested in Inquest report.

f) Appriciation of the evidence of Pw.7 and Pw.8 they are the mediaotrs fo the scene observation report and Inquest, the death of the deceased no.1 to 3 they are not disputed, the deceased no.1 to 3 died due to accident and there is no dispute of the accident, Pw.1 stated deceased no.1 to 3 went to the kanupuru village in motorcycle for un known lorry dashed the deceased motorcycle, deceased no.1 to 3 received severe injuries, they died on the spot.

g) The evidence of Pw.9 he is eye witness of the entire incident but he turned hostile, he stated he do not know anything about this case, i have not seen the accused at the time of the accident and also i was not present at the scene of offence. The testmoney evidence is not support to the prosecution case.

h) Prosecution failed to examined any eye witness and material part of the evidence. The court closed the prosecution evidence after several oppournities given to prosecution to produce the elicity the evidence against accused but failed to produced evidence against the accused.

i) Appriciation material on evidence prosecution failed to prove the who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and also not prove the identification of the accused at the time of the accident. Prosecution failed to prove the essential ingridents under sec.304-A IPC. Prosecution fail to produce the evidence againest accused, Hence the accused entitled acquited for benefit of the doubt.

11. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and 134 r/w 177 of MV Act and accordingly, he is

Acquitted for the same under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if

APNE0A0026612019

CC No. 1575/2019

Dt: 15.04.2025. 6

any shall stand cancelled after laps of appeal time. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-T. Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: -- NONE

PW1 : Sk. Chanbasha PW2 : Sk. Nagoor Basha PW3 : Sk. Shameem PW4 : Sk. Masthan PW5 : Sk. Ameena Bee PW6 : Sk. Shaheena PW7 : E. Hari Babu PW8 : B. Prasad PW9 : Sajja Sridhar PW10 : Kasim Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Defence: NIL

Ex.P1: Signature on report of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P8: Scene observation report Ex.P9: Inquest report Ex.P10: Inquest report of deceased No.3 Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW10 Ex.P12: Inquest report of deceased No.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-T. Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APNE0A0041692021

CC No. 3371/2022

Dt: 15.04.2025. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: NELLORE

Present: Sri. T. Bhaskar,

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Tuesday, this the (15 th ) day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 3371 of 20 21

The State Sub-Inspector of Police,

V. Satram Police Station. .. Complainant.

Versus:

Chyan Kumar Roy, S/o. Ashoke Kumar Roy, Aged 32 years, R/o. Kailash Ghosh Road, Purba Barisha, Kolakata,

West Bengal State... Accused.

Ambati Polaiah, S/o. Venkaiah, Aged 75 years, Kakuturu Village, V. Satram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....Deceased

This case is coming on01-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel Sri K. Vidhyadhar for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The State Inspector of Police, Venkatachala Satram Police Station

Nellore, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 88/2021 against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC), alleging as follows:

a) On 21.02.2021 at about 01.00 p.m. the deceased/Ambati Polaiah, casted the vote on the eve of Panchayathi elections, to proceed to Sivalayam

APNE0A0041692021

CC No. 3371/2022

Dt: 15.04.2025. 2

situated in the forest, got down the auto in golagamudi cross road, while crossing the

NH-16 road from eastern side to western side, by that time the accused driver of car bearing No. KA 03 NB 4243 having red in colour driven the car in a high speed rash and negligent manner hit the deceased, due to jolt the deceased fell on the road, sustained severe injury over the temporal region. LW’s 2 and 3 were present at the scene. LW2 on seeing the same, informed the same to LW1. LW1 along with his relatives rushed to the spot, shifted the deceased through 108 ambulance to GGH,

Nellore, after taking advice from the duty doctors, then shifted the deceased to

Medicover Hospital for better treatment. The deceased was died midday at 03.10 p.m. while undergoing treatment at Medicover Hospital, Nellore. The deceased was sustained severe injuries in the road accident and died. There is not foul play or any suspicion did not arose either blood relatives or witnesses with regards to the death of the deceased.

b) On 21.012.2021 at 17.00 hours on receipt of the report of LW1, LW13 got registered the same as a case in Cr. No. 88/2021, U/sec. 304-A of IPC of V. Satram

PS, at the same time submitted original FIR to this Court and copies of FIRs submitted to all concerned officers and investigated into. During the course of investigation LW13 secured as many as LW’s 1 to 6 examined them and recorded their detailed statements while observing the scene of offence seized the crime vehicle under a cover of scene observation report in the presence of LW’s 7 and 8, also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.

c) On 23.03.2021 at 11.00 hours the accused surrendered before LW14 in the

Police Station while admitting the guilty of the offence, then LW14 serve notice 41-A

Cr.P.C. against the accused and directed to the accused to appear before the Court when the court is required his presence in addition to verified the crime vehicle records. As per orders of the Court LW14 handed over the property to the petitioner

Singara Gosh in the presence of LW10 under a cover of mahazarnama duly attested

LW10. After completion of investigation LW14/Sk. Karimulla, SI of Police, V Satram

PS filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

APNE0A0041692021

CC No. 3371/2022

Dt: 15.04.2025. 3

3. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under Section 304-A of

IPC.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under

Section 304-A IPC. The contents of the offence were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and M.O.1.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

10. POINT:- W hether the accused was driver at the time of accident and whether drove the same rash and negligent manner caused death of deceased.

Under Sec.304-A IPC.

Constution as alleged of offence under sec.304-A IPC

against accused the prosecution established the connection of accused and crime vehicle, thereupon folloiwng ingredients are to prove constute offence under sec.304-A IPC.

1. There must death of person in a question

2. Death must be have been caused by the accused

3. Death must have been caused due to rash or negligence act of accused.

APNE0A0041692021

CC No. 3371/2022

Dt: 15.04.2025. 4

4.The act of the accused not amount culpelbel homicide.

a) Comming the evidence of Pw.1 stated on 21.02.2021 at about 01.00PM his elder father travel in auto at venkatachal forest to nellore he reached the golgamudi cross road, (NH-16 road) at the time car driver drove the his car rash and negligent manner dashed the his elder father auto resulted he elderfather fall on the raod he sustained bleeding injury over the head region, some un known person informed him, immediately he rushed the scene of offence shifted his elder father to GGH

Nellore through 108 ambulance therafter shifted to Medicover Hospital for better treatment. Thereafter he died while under going treatment. Except he do not know anything about this case.

b) Perused the evidence of Pw.1 he is not eye witness of the entire the incident and he do not know who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident, hence the testmoney of the evidence of pw.1 is not supported the prosecution case.

c) The evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 they are turned hostile, they stated do not know anything about this case and police did not exmined them.

d) The evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 not trust worthyly.

e) The evidence of Pw.4,Pw.5 is mediator of the scene observation and

Inquest, Pw.6 is a mediator of the Inquest report. Pw.4 and Pw.5 stated that they went to Venkatachalam Police Station some personal work Pw.7 obtained their signatures in some paper except that they do not know anything. Pw.6 is a mediator of Inquest report, he is also stated he went to the venkatachalam police station on his some personel work Pw.7 obtained his signature on some papers he did not know contents thereon.

f) Perused the evidence of Pw.4 to Pw.6 mediators of this case they turned hostile, hence not supported the case of prosecution.

g) The evidence of Pw.7 who is investigation officer he conducted the investigation of this case. He stated on 22.02.2021 at about 17.00 hours he received report from Pw.1 and also he received MLC death intimation from Medicover

Hospital, Nellore, thereafter he registered case he took up the invesitgation he visited the scene of offence along with pw.1 and prepared scene observation report

APNE0A0041692021

CC No. 3371/2022

Dt: 15.04.2025. 5

in the presence of Pw.4 and Pw.5 and seized the crime vehicle bearing number

KA.03.NB.4243 thereafter the said crime vehicle produced before the Hon’ble court, (Vide Form No.60), on the next day my staff shifted deadbody of the deceased to

GGH, nellore for PM (Post Mortem). I reached GGH, Nellore i secured the Lw.2 to

Lw.4 examined them and recorded their statements, thereafter i secured the mediators ( Pw.4 to Pw.6) their presence conducted Inquest of the deadbody of the deceased. On 10.03.2021 Lw.14 received PM certificate from Lw.11, On 22.04.2021 lw.14 received MVI report from Lw.12. Thereafter lw.14 direction of the Hon’ble court vide Crl.Mp.60/2021, dated:25.03.2021 released the crime vehicle and also prepared the Handover Mahazarnama ( crime vehicle handed over the concerned owner).

h) Appriciation evidence of the prosecution not prove the who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident and prosecution failed to prove accused was driver at the time of the accident and also fail to prove ingredients of the 304-A IPC, the death of the deceased not disputed pw.1 stated the death of the deceased while crossing the road in auto one un known car dashed the deceased fell down on the road he received succumbed head injury while under going treatment deceased died, not identify the accused any of the prosecution witness.prosecution fail to prove any evidence against accused Hence, accused is entitled acquital for the benefit of the doubt.

11. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is Acquitted for the same under

Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled. Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. was complied with. Crime vehicle (M.O.1) already return to concern owner released as in Crl.Mp.60/2021,dated:25.03.2021 for interim custody. Custudy of vehicle(M.O.1) shall made absoulted after expire of appeal period time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-T. Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APNE0A0041692021

CC No. 3371/2022

Dt: 15.04.2025. 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: -- NONE -- PW1 : A. Chiranjeevi PW2 : P. Bala Krishna PW3 : K. Ramu PW4 : D. Surendra Babu PW5 : A. Ankaiah PW6 : J. Narayana PW7 : A. Vara Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Defence: -Nil-

Ex.P1: Signature on report of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Original First Information Report Ex.P6: Scene observation report Ex.P7: Inquest report Ex.P8: Postmortem certificate Ex.P9: MVI report Ex.P10: Mahazarnama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 is Car bearing No. KA 03 NB 4243

Sd/-T. Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APNE0A0000842020

CC No. 218/2020

Dt: 11.04.2025. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: NELLORE

Present: Sri. T. Bhaskar,

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

Friday, this the (11 th ) day of April, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 218 of 20 20

The State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nellore Rural Police Station. .. Complainant.

Versus:

Pilli Srinivasulu, S/o. Anki Reddy, Aged 38 years, R/o. Chalapathi Nagar, Padarupalli,

Nellore. .. Accused.

Shaik Karimulla, S/o. Siddaiah, Aged 39 years, Buchireddypalem Village and Mandal, SPSR Nellore District....Deceased

This case is coming on01-04-2025 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and the learned Counsel Sri D. Ramanaiah for the Accused, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The State Sub Inspector of Police, Nellore Rural Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 155/2019 against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as IPC), alleging as follows:

a) On 04.05.2019 at about 09.30 a.m. when he was coming out from Ram

Prasad Reddy lorry yard situated at South Rajupalem, Nellore the drive of an lorry drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner while reserving the lorry and dashed

APNE0A0000842020

CC No. 218/2020

Dt: 11.04.2025. 2

her elder brother at the entrance of the lorry yard. As a result he fell down and the lorry driver went away from there with the lorry towards Nellore. The workers of the lorry yard namely Gopal/LW4 and LW5 and shifted him to GGH, Nellore by 108 ambulance. The doctor at GGH, Nellore declared her brother brought dead. As per the versions of LW6 the name of the driver of the lorry elicited as Pilli Srinivasulu, driver of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 26 TF 5639.

b) Basing on the report of LW1/Shaik Shakeela, LW12/V. Polu Raju, SI of

Police, Nellore Rural PS registered a case in Cr. No. 155/2019, U/sec. 304-A of IPC of Nellore Rural PS on 04.05.2019 at 19.00 hours and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW12 recorded the statements of LW’s to 6, LW12 examined the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and observation report of the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators LW’s 7 and 8. LW12 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW’s 7 to 9 and sent the dead bodies for autopsy. LW10 conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued PM Certificate that the cause of death of the deceased is blunt abdominal and pelvic injuries. LW6/ produced the accused driver before

LW12, LW12 served notice to the accused U/sec. 41-a Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation LW13/K. Nagarjuna Reddy, SI of Police, Nellore Rural PS filed charge sheet.

3. This Court taken cognizance against the accused under Section 304-A of

IPC.

4. On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of relevant case records were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The contents of the offence were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the offence by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

APNE0A0000842020

CC No. 218/2020

Dt: 11.04.2025. 3

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.

7. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C in respect of incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?”

10. POINT:- W hether the accused was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of

accident and whether he drove the same rash and negligent manner with high

speed and caused the death of deceased.

To constitute of offence as alleged to the prosecution first established the connection of accused crime vehicle alleged accident the follwoing. Ingredients are to be proved the constitute the offence punishable U/sec. 304-A of IPC.

1. There must death of person in a question

2. Death must be have been caused by the accused

3. Death must have been caused due to rash or negligence act of accused.

4.The act of the accused not amount culpelbel homicide.

a) In this case evidence of prosecution examined the PW1 to PW3 stated. She do not know the accused. They are not eye witnesses of the accident.

They came to know the unknown person about the accident. They want to GGH,

Nellore deceased laying mortuery room.

b) PW1 and PW2 are blood relatives of the deceased. They cannot identify the accused. They are not eye witness of the case, PW3 is turned hostile. He do not know anything evidence of PW1 to PW3 not supported prosecution case.

APNE0A0000842020

CC No. 218/2020

Dt: 11.04.2025. 4

c) Evidence of PW4 who is owner of the crime vehicle. He received phone call from Nellore Rural PS on 04.05.2019. Informed he lorry met with an accident same was kept in Police Station. He went to Police Station and submitted lorry records police released the crime vehicle. He do not know manner of accused and who drove the said lorry at the time of accident. Peruse the testimony of PW4. He do not know who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident. His evidence not supported case of prosecution.

d) Evidence of PW5 he is turned hostile. He do not know anything about the case his evidence not supported of prosecution.

e) Evidence of PW6 who is mediator of the case he stated. LW12 asked him and LW7 act as mediator. They accept the act as mediator, they went scene of offence along with LW12. LW12 prepared scene observation report their presence.

They acted the scene observation report. On the same day himself and LW7, LW8 went to GGH, Nellore. LW12 came there asked them act as mediator, same is agrred them. LW12 inquest in presence of them. Thereafter attested the inquest report, testimony of evidence of PW6 not dispated, death of deceased is not dispated,

f) Evidence of the Doctor/who is conduct the autopsy. Examined and following injuries:-

1. Contusion of 6 X 6 over inner aspect of right upper thigh.

2. Scrotal sac is swollen, on opening the sac, 500ml of clotted blood present.

3. Abrasion of 3 X 3 cm over lower part ofback of right side of abdomen, 2cm lateral to midline.

4. Laceration of 6 X 1 X 1cm over posterior aspect of right lobe of liver.

5. Fractured pelvic bones a t multiples sites.

Accordingly he issued wound certificate. Testimony of his evidence not dispute/question death of deceased, but prosecution failed to prove the how to occurred the accident, and who drove the crime vehicle.

APNE0A0000842020

CC No. 218/2020

Dt: 11.04.2025. 5

g) The evidence of Pw.8 who is investigation officer. He registered report marked as Ex.P7. He took up the investigation. Examined the PW1 at Police

Station. Thereafter he visited scene of offence observed the scene of offence in presence of mediators (LW7, PW6) and prepared rough sketch. Thereafter he visited GGH, Nellore . Conduct inquest in presence of mediators. Thereafter he examind the LW2 to LW6 and recorded their statement. Accused produced before him, issued 41-a Cr.P.C. notice. He directed is accused appear to before Hon’ble

Court when ever required. LW13 received PM Certificate and MVI Certificate from

LW11. After completion of investigation LW13 filed the charge sheet.

h) Evidence of prosecution firstly not identified the accused in any of the witness of prosecution, and also not prove the who drove the vehicle at the time of accident. Prosecution failed to examined the eye witness of the case. Death of deceased no dispute. But prosecution fail to prove the who drove the vehicle and who committ the accident, finally fail to prove the section 304-A of IPC. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused and accordingly accused is entitle acquittal.

11. In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly, he is Acquitted for the same under

Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time. The bail bonds of the Accused shall stand cancelled. Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. was complied with. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant (Contract basis) corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 11 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-T. Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Prosecution: Defence: -- NONE -- PW1 : Sk. Shakeera PW2 : Sk. Chotibee

APNE0A0000842020

CC No. 218/2020

Dt: 11.04.2025. 6

PW3 : K. Gopal PW4 : Govind Rama Prasad PW5 : Chenchaiah PW6 : Chinna Masthan saheb PW7 : Dr. M. Venkateswarlu PW8 : V. Polu Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Defence: -Nil-

Ex.P1: Signature on report of PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Scene observation report Ex.P5: Inquest report Ex.P6: Wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P7: Original FIR Ex.P8: Rough sketch Ex.P9: MVI report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-T. Bhaskar

IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nellore.