Smt.T.Lakshmi

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

Part completed. IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2022

PRESENT: SMT T. LAKSHMI,

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JADCHERLA.

C.C No. 480 of 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, represented through

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Balanagar … Complainant

And

A1.Vijay Raj Vaishnav, S/o. Devidas, age 21 years, Occ:Mobile Phones business at Santhosh Mobiles, R/o. Rajastan State now at Balanagar village and Mandal. A2.Vislavath Megya, S/o. Deepla, age 26 years, Occ: Mobiles business at Mega Digital Photo studio and mobiles, R/o. Gunded thanda, h/o. Gunded village, Balanagar Mandal. A3. Vislavath Raju, S/o. Kistu, age 22 years, Occ: Business at Parameshari mobiles, R/o. Nerallapally village, Balanagar Mandal. A4.Ammapally Venugopal @ Venu, S/o. Yadaiah, age 22 years, Occ: Business at Venu mobils, r/o. Balanagar village and Mandal. A5. Katravath Mahesh, S/o Tulsiram, Age: 21 years, CastE: Lambada, Occ: Business at Bhavani Electronics and Mobiles, R/o Nerellapally, Balanagar Mandal. A6. Tirmaldas Raghavendhar, S/o Sathyanarayana, Age: 28 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Business at Siddivinayaka Mobiles, R/o Railway station road, Balanagar Mandal. A7. Kucherkal Balanjan, S/o Pandari, Age: 26 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Business at Sharadha Mobiles, R/o H. Nol. 1-78, Gundlapotlapally village, Balanagar Mandal.

…Accused A1 to A7 * * *

This case is coming on 10.10.2022 or final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O appearing on behalf of the State and of

Sri G.Vishwashwar, Advocate for accused and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr. No.218/2014 of PS. Balanagar registered against accused A1 to A7 for the offence punishable Under

Section 63 r/w 51, 68 r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 of Copy right Act of 1957.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 11.09.2014 at 11:00 hours PW2 came to PS Balanagar and lodged a report stating that, he is the senior investigator in Indian Music

Industry which is having a membership of 209 leading music companies such as Sarigama, Aditya Music India private limited, Sony, Tips

Universal etc., The main object of IMI is to protect the interests of their member company from audio chip piracy. PW2 was given GPA by IMI to conduct survey so as to detect Audio chip piracy and lodged the report

before concerned PS. Thus on 11.09.2014 PW2 conducted survey within

the limits of Balanagar PS and came to a conclusion that, audio chip piracy was being done at Mobile shops namely, 1. Santhosh mobiles, 2.

Megha Digitals Photo studio, 3. Parameshwari mobiles, 4. Venu Mobiles,

5. Jai Bhavani mobiles and electronics, 6. Siddi Vinayaka mobiles and 7.

Sharada mobiles Bangalore road, Balanagar. The said shops are indulging audio chip piracy and recording the cinema songs in memory cards on the demand of the customers of their choice and using computer and its accessories, card readers and collecting amounts from the customers without having any license or copy right agreement from copy right holders, thereby violating copy right Act 1957 U/S 63 r/w 51, 68 r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 copy right Act 1957, hence the report.

3.Pursuant to the report, dated: 11.09.2014 PW1, SI of police, PS

Balanagar registered a case in Cr.No.218/2014 for the offence U/S 63 r/w 51, 68(A) r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 copy right Act 1957 against accused persons and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation

PW1 examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and proceeded to

Santhosh mobiles along with PW.3 where A1 got loaded new Telugu film songs in 4GB memory card by taking a cash of Rs.300 from PW.3 without having any license from IMI and secured PW5, 6 and conducted

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A1 and seized 1.

4GB Memory card, 2. Acer Monitor, 3. CPU(X-press), 4. Key Board(logi tex), 5. Mouse(micro soft), 6. Card reader from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama. Later PW1 proceeded to Megha Digital

Photo Studio, Balanagar wherein A2 got loaded new Telugu songs after taking a net cash of Rs.250 from LW.3 without having any license from

IMI. PW.1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A2 in the presence of PW.5 and 6 and seized 1. 2GB Memory card, 2. DEL Monitor, 3. CPU(Techcon), 4. Key Board(IBM), 5.

Mouse(Frontech), 6. Card reader from the possession of A2 under cover of panchanama. Later PW1 proceeded to Prameshwari mobiles,

Balanagar wherein A3 got loaded new Telugu songs after taking a net cash of Rs.300/- from LW.3 without having any license from IMI. PW.1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A3 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and seized 1. 4GB Memory card, 2.

Monitor(AOC), 3. CPU(Odyssey), 4. Key Board (Odyssey), 5.

Mouse(Intex), 6. Card reader from the possession of A3 under cover of panchanama. Later PW1 proceeded to Venu mobiles, Balanagar wherein

A4 got loaded new Telugu songs after taking a net cash of Rs.300/- from

LW.3 without having any license from IMI. PW.1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A3 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and seized 1. 2GB Memory card, 2. Monitor(AOC), 3. CPU, 4. Key

Board(Frontech), 5. Mouse(Acer), 6. Card reader(USB2.0) from the possession of A4 under cover of panchanama. Later PW1 proceeded to

Jai Bhavani Electronics and mobiles shop, Balanagar wherein A5 got loaded new Telugu songs after taking a net cash of Rs.300/- from LW.3 without having any license from IMI. PW.1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A4 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and seized 1. 2GB Memory card, 2. Laptop, 3. Card reader(red bridge) from the possession of A5 under cover of panchanama. Later PW1 proceeded to Siddi Vinayaka mobiles shop, Balanagar wherein A6 got loaded new Telugu songs after taking money from the customers without having any license from IMI. PW.1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A6 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and seized 1. 2GB Memory card with pre-loaded cinema songs(3 in number),

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

2. 4GB memory cards(10 in number) from the possession of A6 under cover of panchanama. Later PW1 proceeded to Sharada mobiles shop,

Balanagar wherein A7 got loaded new Telugu songs after taking a net cash of Rs.300/- from LW.3 without having any license from IMI. PW.1 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused A7 in the presence of PWs.5 and 6 and seized 1. 2GB Memory cards, 2.

Monitor(Acer), 3. CPU(bulzer), 4. Key Board(Microsoft), 5. Mouse(Micro soft), 6. Card reader from the possession of A7 under cover of panchanama. After confession-cum-recovery panchanama from A1 to A7 were brought to PS and issued 41-A Cr.P.C to A1 to A7. After completion of investigation PW.1 filed charge sheet before the court for the offence U/S 63 r/w 51, 68(A) r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 copy right Act 1957.

4.Cognizance was taken for the offence U/S 63 r/w 51, 68(A) r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 copy right Act 1957 against accused A1 to A7.

5.Copies of relevant documents furnished to accused A1 to A7 as required Under Section 207 CrPC.

6.Accused A1 to A7 were examined Under Section 239 CrPC who denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Charge for the offence Under Section 63 r/w 51, 68(A) r/w 52(A) (1) and 65 copy right Act 1957 which was framed against the accused A1 to A7 read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.PW1 to PW6 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P23 marked on behalf of prosecution.

8.Accused were examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, to which they denied the evidence however they did not chose to examine any defence witnesses on their behalf.

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

9.Heard the learned APPO and the learned counsel for accused.

10. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the case against accused for the offence Under Section 63 r/w 51, 68(A)

r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 copy right Act 1957 beyond

reasonable doubt?

11. Point:

This is the case of the prosecution that accused A1 to A7 violated the copy right Act for their illegal profits. The prosecution examined Pws.2 to 4 who are the defacto complainant and eye witnesses to the incident.

The mediator to the confession-cum-seizure panchanama was examined as PWs.5 and 6. The IO is examined as PW.1.

12. Ex.P1 is FIR, Exs.P2 to P8 are theconfession cum seizure panchanamas of A1 to A7, Ex.P9 is the report. Ex.P10 to 16 are the signatures of PW.5 on confession-cum-seizure panchanamas. Ex.P17 to

P23are the signatures of PW.6 on confession-cum-seizure panchanamas.

13. The defacto Complainant who lodged the report and set the criminal law into motion is examined as PW2 who deposed that, on 11.09.2014 he along with PWs.3 and 4 conducted survey within the Balanagar P.S limits to know about the piracy of songs. PW.1 visited Santhosh mobiles

Megha digital mobiles, Siddi Vinayaka mobiles, Sharada mobiles and noticed that piracy of audio songs were going on in the said mobile shops. At Siddi Vinayaka mobiles shops even memory cards are being sold to various persons after receiving an amount of Rs.250/- and

Rs. 300/-. PWs. 3 and 4 purchased the memory cards in which the cinema songs of Adithya Music Company were recorded. Immediately they gave information to PW.2 thus he lodged the report under Ex.P9. In cross-examination PW.2 admitted that he has not received any receipt with regard to payment of amount.

14. PW3, deposed in the same lines of PW.2 and 3 that, on 11.09.2014 he visited Megha Digital mobiles, Jai Bhavani mobiles and he came to

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

know that the said shop owners were committing audio piracy and gave information to PW.2. On the instructions of PW.2 he entered into the shops i.e., Megha Digital mobiles, Jai Bhavani mobiles and requested to record the Telugu Audio songs to which the shop owners demanded an amount of Rs.300/-. After payment of amount they got recorded Telugu cinema songs in 2GB memory chip. In cross-examination he admitted that he stated to police as in Ex.D1 and he do not know about the shop numbers allotted by Grampanchayat and also admitted that he cannot say the company name of memories cards.

15. PW5, PW6 who are the mediators to confession-cum-seizure panchanama turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution as both of them deposed in one voice that, no confession cum seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence and on the request of police they scribed their signatures on some papers. EXP10 to P16 are the signatures of PW5 on confession cum recovery panchanamas of A1 to A7. EXP17 to P23 are the signatures of PW6 on confession cum recovery panchanamas of A1 to A7. Though they were cross examined by learned APPO Under Section 145/154 of Indian Evidence Act, nothing elicited in favour of prosecution or they are interested in accused persons.

Thus seizure articles from the possession of accused persons left not proved.

16.In order to establish the seizure of articles from various shops at

Balanagar the prosecution is relying on the evidence of PWs5 and 6.

PW1 deposed that he seized articles, 1. 4GB Memory card, 2. Acer

Monitor, 3. CPU(X-press), 4. Key Board (Logitex), 5. Mouse(Micro soft),

6. Card reader from the possession of A1, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2. DEL

Monitor, 3. CPU(Techcon), 4. Key Board(IBM), 5. Mouse(Frontech), 6.

Card reader from the possession of A2, 1. 4GB Memory card, 2. Monitor (AOC), 3. CPU(Odyssey), 4. Key Board (Odyssey), 5. Mouse(Intex), 6.

Card reader from the possession of A3, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2.

Monitor(AOC), 3. CPU, 4. Key Board(Frontech), 5. Mouse(Acer), 6. Card reader(USB2.0) from the possession of A4, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2.

Laptop, 3. Card reader(red bridge) from the possession of A5, 1. 2GB

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

Memory card with pre-loaded cinema songs(3 in number), 2. 4GB memory cards(10 in number) from the possession of A6, 1. 2GB Memory cards, 2. Monitor(Acer), 3. CPU(bulzer), 4. Key Board(Microsoft), 5.

Mouse (Micro soft), 6. Card reader from the possession of A7in the presence of PW5 and 6, where as the evidence of PW5 and 6 is that none confessed in their presence and nothing was seized. Therefore the evidence of Pw.1 is clearly contradicting with the evidence of PW5 and 6 in respect of confession of accused A1 to A7 and seizure of articles from the possession of A1 to A7. Hence one cannot establish the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, now it is only the testimonies of PW2, 3 and 4 are on record for connecting the accused with the alleged crime.

According to PW2, he directed PW3, PW4 for conducting survey to know audio piracy within the limits of PS Balanagar. Thus PW3 and 4 proceeded for survey and came to a conclusion that, owners of Santhosh mobiles, Megha Digital photo studio, Parameshwari mobiles, Venu mobiles, Jai Bhavani mobiles, Siddi Vinayaka mobiles and Sharada mobiles were committing audio piracy, however both of them failed to submit the ownership documents to connect the A1 to A7 to the offence to know whether the alleged persons are owners of the mobile shops or any person working under them were committing piracy. Even PWs. 3 and 4 in their Chief Examination admitted that, they do not know the accused persons, which leads to a conclusion that, some other persons were present in the shops. Admittedly PWs2 to 4 are the interested witnesses and it is not safe to connect the accused basing on their testimonies when seizure of articles from the possession of accused A1 to A7 left not proved without corroboration of independent witnesses.

Even prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses from the place of offence including mediators to the confession.

17.Therefore the above discussion leads me to come to a conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence Under Section 63 r/w 51, 68(A) r/w 52(A)(1) and 65 copy right Act 1957. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

18. IN THE RESULT:

The accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 63 r/w 51, 68 r/w 52(A) (1) and 65 copy right

Act 1957 and accordingly they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) CrPC for the said charge and they are set at liberty. The Surety bonds and bail bonds of accused A1 to A7 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time Under Section 437(A) CrPC.

The unmarked case property i.e., 1. 4GB Memory card, 2. Acer

Monitor, 3. CPU(X-press), 4. Key Board (Logitex), 5. Mouse(Micro soft),

6. Card reader from the possession of A1, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2. DEL

Monitor, 3. CPU(Techcon), 4. Key Board(IBM), 5. Mouse(Frontech), 6.

Card reader from the possession of A2, 1. 4GB Memory card, 2. Monitor (AOC), 3. CPU(Odyssey), 4. Key Board (Odyssey), 5. Mouse(Intex), 6.

Card reader from the possession of A3, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2.

Monitor(AOC), 3. CPU, 4. Key Board(Frontech), 5. Mouse(Acer), 6. Card reader(USB2.0) from the possession of A4, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2.

Laptop, 3. Card reader(red bridge) from the possession of A5, 1. 2GB

Memory card with pre-loaded cinema songs(3 in number), 2. 4GB memory cards(10 in number) from the possession of A6, 1. 2GB Memory cards, 2. Monitor(Acer), 3. CPU(bulzer), 4. Key Board(Microsoft), 5.

Mouse (Micro soft), 6. Card reader from the possession of A7 vide CPR

No.413/14, dated:30.09.2014 which were given to police custody shall be destroyed.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29 th day of November, 2022

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: I. Manoj Kumar None P.W.2: S. Sudarshan P.W.3: D. Ramana P.W.4: K V Lalith Narayana P.W.5: K. Narender Reddy P.W.6: Mohd Muqtar Ali

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 is the FIR Ex.P2 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P3 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P4 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A3 Ex.P5 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A4 Ex.P6 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A5 Ex.P7 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A6 Ex.P8 is the confession cum seizure panchanama of A7 Ex.P9 is the police report Ex.P10 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P11 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P12 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A3 Ex.P13 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A4 Ex.P14 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A5 Ex.P15 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A6 Ex.P16 is the sign of PW5 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A7 Ex.P17 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P18 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 Ex.P19 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A3 Ex.P20 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A4 Ex.P21 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A5 Ex.P22 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A6 Ex.P23 is the sign of PW6 on confession cum seizure panchanama of A7

DEFENCE:

EX.D1 is the part of 161 statement of PW5.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

CALENDAR CASE NO. 480 OF 2014

1. Date Of Offence : 11.09.2014

2. Date of Complaint : 11.09.2014

3. Date of Apprehension : 11.09.2014

4. Commencement of Trail : 17.07.2017

5. Closure of Trial on : 31.10.2022

6. Date of Judgment : 29.11.2022

7. Complainant : The State of Telangana Through S.H.O. of P.S.Balanagar

8. Name of the accused :

A1.Vijay Raj Vaishnav, S/o. Devidas, age 21 years, Occ:Mobile Phones business at Santhosh Mobiles, R/o. Rajastan State now at Balanagar village and Mandal.

A2.Vislavath Megya, S/o. Deepla, age 26 years, Occ: Mobiles business at Mega Digital Photo studio and mobiles, R/o. Gunded thanda, h/o.

Gunded village, Balanagar Mandal.

A3. Vislavath Raju, S/o. Kistu, age 22 years, Occ: Business at

Parameshari mobiles, R/o. Nerallapally village, Balanagar Mandal.

A4.Ammapally Venugopal @ Venu, S/o. Yadaiah, age 22 years, Occ:

Business at Venu mobils, r/o. Balanagar village and Mandal.

A5. Katravath Mahesh, S/o Tulsiram, Age: 21 years, CastE: Lambada,

Occ: Business at Bhavani Electronics and Mobiles, R/o Nerellapally,

Balanagar Mandal.

A6. Tirmaldas Raghavendhar, S/o Sathyanarayana, Age: 28 years,

Caste: Goud, Occ: Business at Siddivinayaka Mobiles, R/o Railway station road, Balanagar Mandal.

A7. Kucherkal Balanjan, S/o Pandari, Age: 26 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ:

Business at Sharadha Mobiles, R/o H. Nol. 1-78, Gundlapotlapally village,

Balanagar Mandal.

9. Offence : U/S 63 r/w 51, 68 r/w 52(A) (1) and 65 copy right Act 1957

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

CC No. 480 of 2014 29.11.2022

11. Result : In the result, the accused A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 63 r/ w 51, 68 r/w 52(A) (1) and 65 copy right Act 1957 and accordingly they are acquitted Under Section 248(1) CrPC for the said charge and they are set at liberty. The Surety bonds and bail bonds of accused A1 to A7 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time

Under Section 437(A) CrPC.

The unmarked case property i.e., 1. 4GB Memory card,

2. Acer Monitor, 3. CPU(X-press), 4. Key Board (Logitex), 5.

Mouse(Micro soft), 6. Card reader from the possession of A1, 1.

2GB Memory card, 2. DEL Monitor, 3. CPU(Techcon), 4. Key

Board(IBM), 5. Mouse(Frontech), 6. Card reader from the possession of A2, 1. 4GB Memory card, 2. Monitor (AOC), 3.

CPU(Odyssey), 4. Key Board (Odyssey), 5. Mouse(Intex), 6. Card reader from the possession of A3, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2.

Monitor(AOC), 3. CPU, 4. Key Board(Frontech), 5. Mouse(Acer), 6.

Card reader(USB2.0) from the possession of A4, 1. 2GB Memory card, 2. Laptop, 3. Card reader(red bridge) from the possession of

A5, 1. 2GB Memory card with pre-loaded cinema songs(3 in number), 2. 4GB memory cards(10 in number) from the possession of A6, 1. 2GB Memory cards, 2. Monitor(Acer), 3. CPU(bulzer), 4.

Key Board(Microsoft), 5. Mouse (Micro soft), 6. Card reader from the possession of A7 vide CPR No.413/14, dated:30.09.2014 which were given to police custody shall be destroyed.

Prl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

Lr.Dis.No. 2022, dated Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,At Mahabubnagar.

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

Tuesday, the 29th day of November, 2022

PRESENT: SMT T. LAKSHMI,

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, JADCHERLA.

C.C No. 196 of 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Rajapur. … Complainant

And

Md.Rafie, S/o. Md.Khajamoiddin, age 40 years, Occ: Driver of bus bearing No.AP22U6809, R/o.Avancha village of Thimmajipet Mandal of

Mahabubnagar District.

…Accused * * *

This case is coming on 21.11.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O appearing on behalf of the State and of

Sri A.Murali Krishna Rao, Advocate for accused and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The SI of Police PS Balanagar, filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable U/S 304-A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

On 22.11.2013 at 09:30 hours PW1 lodged a report stating that, on 20.11.2013 she along with her mother went to Rajapur village to attend

Ratham Pooja at PW.3’s house. On the same day at about 5:00 pm her mother Anjamma took her daughter to the other side of the road to attend

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

nature call meanwhile one school bus bearing No.AP22V6809 coming from Jadcherla side which was driven in rash and negligent manner and hit to her mother, due to which she sustained severe bleeding injuries who was shifted to CHC, Shadnagar and later to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad where she succumbed to injuries on 22.11.2013.

Hence the report.

Basing on the report LW12, M.Venkataiah, ASI of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.223/2013 for the offence punishable U/S 304-A of Indian

Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW13 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at PS and visited the scene of offence located at Rajapur village-Thirumalapur road and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PWs.5 and 7. On 22.11.2013 LW.12 visited the

Osmania Hospital where he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Anjamma in the presence of PW.4. LW.12 examined and recorded the statements of PW.2, LW.3/Boya Bandaiah at Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad and handed over the dead body for autopsy. On 23.11.2013, LW.12 examined and recorded the statements of PW.3 and LW.5/D.Yadi Reddy at scene of offence and handed over

CD file to PW.6 for further investigation. On 30.11.2013, accused voluntarily came to PS and surrendered before PW.6 who on interrogation admitted his guilt. PW.6 effected his arrest and sent him to judicial custody. After collecting the relevant documents PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/S 304-A IPC.

3. This court has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable U/S 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused and registered the case as CC No.196/2014. On his appearance accused furnished with copies of documents as required U/S 207 CrPC and he is examined U/S 251

Cr.P.C and accusation was read over and explained to him in Telugu to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW-1 to 6 and

Exs.P1 to P7 marked.

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

5. Accused was examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witness in Telugu, to which he denied the evidence, however he did not chose to examine any defense witnesses on his behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination are :

1. Whether the accused was driving the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident?

2. Whether the crime vehicle was driven in rash or negligent manner and whether the accident occurred due to that reason?

3. Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code?

8. POINTS 1 & 2 :

This is the case of the prosecution that accused drove bus bearing

No.AP22V6809 rashly or negligently and hit to the Anjamma due to which she sustained severe injuries and died while obtaining treatment at

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on 22.11.2013.

9.In order to prove the case for the offence Under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code prosecution has to establish that,

1. Accused is the the rider of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of the accident.

2. Accused drove the same either in negligent or rash

manner which resulted in death of Anjamma.

10. PW.1, who lodged the report and set the criminal law into motion and material witness deposed that on 20-11-2013 she along with her mother Anjamma went to Rajapur village to attend a function at her maternal aunt house. On the same day in the evening at about 5:00pm her mother took her daughter to the other side of the road to attend nature call, meanwhile one school bus bearing No.6809 came in speed manner and hit to her mother due to which she sustained grievous injuries over her stomach, leg. Immediately she was shifted to CHC,

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

Shadnagar who inturn referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where she succumbed to injuries while obtaining treatment on 22.11.2013 she went to PS and lodged the report under Ex.P1. PW.1 identified the accused standing in the court hall to be the driver of the crime vehicle on the day of the incident. In cross-examination PW.1 admitted that she has not mentioned the name of the driver in Ex.P1 or in her 161 statement.

11.The son-in-law of deceased Anjamma is examined as PW.2 deposed in the same lines of PW.1, that at about 6.30 pm he received about the information of accident through PW.1 over phone while he was at his house at Chakrampally village. PW.2 further deposed that he came to know about the accused through PW.1. The evidence of PW.2 amounts to hearsay and admittedly he is not an eye witness to the incident.

12. PW.3 who is the maternal aunt of PW.1 deposed that about 9 years back she invited PW.1 along with her mother in view of a function at her house. After the function all the relatives along with PW.1 sat infront of her house and after hearing hues and cries PW.1 rushed to the scene of offence where she noticed Anjamma lying on the road with grievous injuries over her legs, immediately Anjamma was shifted to hospital and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to injuries. PW.3 further deposed that she do not know the cause of the accident and she even denied of recording of her statement by police. Thus the sole eye-witness who was examined as PW.3 did not render any help to the prosecution to establish the case against accused. The prosecution has given up the other eye-witness, LW.5/D.Yadi Reddy as he died which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

13. PW.5, PW.7 who are the mediators to the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. As both of them deposed in one voice that no scene of offence panchanama was conducted in their presence. Exs.P3, P8 are the signatures of PWs.5, 7 on scene of offence panchanama. PW.4 one of the mediator to the inquest panchanama deposed that police

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

Balanagar conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in his presence and in the presence of LW.9/B.Pochamma under Ex.P2. The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW.9/Boya Pochamma the other mediator for inquest panchanama.

14.The IO is examined as PW.6 who deposed in the lines of the charge sheet and in respect of investigation done by him which is in routine manner which did not render any help to the case of the prosecution.

Ex.P4 is the FIR, Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P6 is the

PME report, Ex.P7 is the MVI report.

15.On perusal of evidence on record, though PW.1 identified the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the incident, however she has not stated the said fact in Ex.P1 or in her 161 statement. Thus the evidence of PW.1 is the improved one to her report and 161 statement. Further, it is well settled law identification for the first time before the court without having prior acquaintance amounts to weak peace of evidence which must be corroborated by any single witness.

PW.3 who is one of the eye-witness deposed that after hearing the hues and cries PW.1 rushed to the scene of offence. There is no evidence on record whether deceased Anjamma intruded towards the bus or bus hit the Anjamma.

16.TheInvestigation Officer, PW.6 came to a conclusion that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident when he voluntarily came to the PS and surrendered before him which itself is not sufficient as the same is hit by Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act. When driver of the crime vehicle was not arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence of the road accident and when eye witnesses has not identified the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle before the police at the time of the investigation or before the court during the trial, he cannot be connected to the occurrence of driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Just because the death occurred, it shall not be presumed that the driver of the crime vehicle was at fault. In the case on hand there is no direct evidence as to how the crime vehicle was moving

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

and cause of the accident resulting in the death of Anjamma. Though

PW1 identified the accused in the court hall, since she has not stated the said fact while lodging the report under EXP1 or in her 161 statement.

Thus no weight can be given to her identification, since it is well settled law that identification for the first time before the court amounts to weak piece of evidence. In any road accident, the movement of the crime vehicle and rate of speed and manner of movement and diligence of the crime vehicle to avert the accident soon before the occurrence are very important to hold the guilty of the crime vehicle driver. The evidence of

PW.6 not corroborated with the evidence of PWs.5, 7 in respect of scene of offence panchanama due to hostile version of mediators scene of offence panchanama not proved. In any road accident the scene of offence panchanama plays vital role to establish the rash or negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Ex.P5 does not disclose the skid marks etc., to establish the offence. No independent witness is examined from the scene of offence except family members. Thus there is no incriminating evidence against the accused to connect him to the offence alleged against him.

17.In view of the above discussion this court hold that prosecution has not placed satisfactory evidence that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and drove the crime vehicle either in rash or negligent manner at the time of accident. Hence the points are answered against the prosecution.

18. Point No.3:

For the foregoing reasons and in view of above discussion this court come to a conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable

Under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remain in

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29 th day of November 2022.

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: L.Ramulamma. - None - P.W.2: B.Mallesh. P.W.3: M.Anthamma. P.W.4: M.Narayana Goud. P.W.5: K.Bachi Reddy. P.W.6: I.Manoj Kumar.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the Report. -NIL- Ex.P2: is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P3: is the signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4: is the FIR. Ex.P5: is the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6: is the PME report. Ex.P7: is the MVI report.

PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

CC No.196 of 2014 29.11.2022

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

CALENDAR CASE NO. 196 OF 2014

1. Date Of Offence : 22.11.2013

2. Date of Complaint : 21.11.2013

3. Date of Apprehension : 30.11.2013

4. Commencement of Trail : 17.08.2016

5. Closure of Trial on : 25.10.2022

6. Date of Judgment : 29.11.2022

7. Complainant : The State of Telangana Through S.H.O. of P.S.Rajapur.

8. Name of the accused : 9. Md.Rafie, S/o. Md.Khajamoiddin, age 40 years, Occ: Driver of bus bearing No.AP22U6809, R/o.Avancha village of Thimmajipet

Mandal of Mahabubnagar District.

9. Offence : U/S 379 IPC

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC and consequently he is acquitted u/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited, there is no order with regard to property.

Prl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

Lr.Dis.No. 2022, dated Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,At Mahabubnagar.

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

Thursday,the 1st day of December, 2022

PRESENT: SMT. T. LAKSHMI,

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

C.C No. 340 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana, represented through

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Rajapur … Complainant

And

A1. Mekala Dhastagiri, S/o Jangaiah, Age: 27 years, Caste: Boya, Occ:

Private Job, R/o Rajapur village.

A2. Palamoni Lingam, S/o Ramulu, Age: 27 years, Caste: Mudiraj,, Occ:

Business, R/o Rajapur village.

A3. Bandakadi Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, age: 34 years,

Caste: Reddy, Occ: Milk Business, R/o Rajapur village of Balanagar

Mandal.

... Accused A1 to A3

* * *

This case is coming on 01.12.2022for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri M.A.Malik Shakir Advocate for accused persons and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The State represented by S.I of police P.S.Rajapur filed the charge sheet against to the accused A1 to A3 in Cr.No.157/2015 for the offence

Under Section 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

a) On 22.05.2015 at 19:30 hours, PW6 lodged a report alleging that on 22.05.2015 at 07:00 hours he was attending VIP bundo bust duty at

Mudireddypally X roads on NH-44 and returning to Balanagar after completion of his duty. At about 18:00 hours he noticed A1 to A3 along with some other persons at Rajapur X roads and quarreling with PW5 as

A3 wrongly parked his bike on NH-44 in view of VIP movement inspite of instructions of PW5. By noticing the same PW6 rushed to the scene of offence and directed the public to leave the place, at that time A1 picked up quarrel with PW6 and even caught hold of his uniform collar and torn the uniform and bet with hands and when PW5 tried to control him the A2,

A3 who are the followers of A1 obstructed in discharging his legitimate duties and bet him with hands on his cheek and back, hence the report.

b) Basing on the report LW7, B. Ashok Kumar, SI of Police,

Balanagar registered a case in Cr.No.157/2015 for the offence punishable

U/S 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation LW7, examined and recorded the statement of PW5 and 6 at PS Balanagar and visited the scene of offence on 23.05.2015 where he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW2, 4 where he examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses i.e., PW1, 3. On 28.05.2015 at 16:30 hours the A1 to A3 came to PS Balanagar and surrendered before

LW7 who were served with 41-A CrPC notice. On furnishing sufficient sureties they were enlarged on bail. After completion of further investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence U/S 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This court has taken the cognizance for the offence punishable U/S 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons and registered the case as CC No.340/2015. On appearance of accused persons, they were furnished with copies of documents as required U/S

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

207 CrPC and they were examined U/S 251 CrPC and accusation was read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and EXP1 to P5 marked.

5.Accused A1 to A3 are examined U/S 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, to which they denied the evidence and did not chose to examine any defense witnesses on their behalf.

6.Heard both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the case against accused

for the offence U/S 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. Point :

This is the case of the prosecution that accused A1 to A3 assaulted

PW6 with hands and also obstructed him in discharging his legitimate duties.

9. In order to establish the case prosecution has to prove that :

Accused persons assaulted the PW6 by using criminal force

while he was discharging his duty as public servant.

10. PW6, defacto complainant who lodged the report and set the criminal law into motion deposed that, on 22.05.2015 he was attending

VIP bundo bust duty at Mudireddypally X roads upto 6:00 PM. After completion of his duty while he was returning to PS Rajapur he noticed a group of persons along with PW5 at X roads, Rajapur. The said persons were altercating with PW5 and inorder to rescue him and to passify the

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

issue between them however, the accused persons did not hear his words and even pushed him to one side, A1 caught hold of his collar and when

PW6 tried to remove the hand of A1 from collar then, A1 to A3 together bet PW6 on his cheek. The A1 to A3 did not hear the words of PW5 and started quarreling with PW5 and 6. Thus, A1 to A3 obstructing in discharging his legitimate duties and also bet with hands on cheek hence he lodged the report under EXP5. The evidence of PW6 further reveals that, he along with PW5 were rescued by the villagers of Rajapur from the hands of A1 to A3. In cross examination PW6 admitted that, except accused persons he cannot recollect the names of the persons who were accumulated near scene of offence.

11.PW5, eye witness to the incident deposed that, on 22.05.2015 at about 7:00 AM he was entrusted with traffic bundo bust duty in view of VIP program at Rajapur. PW6 was also entrusted with traffic bundo bust duty at Mudireddypally village. At about 5:30 PM on 22.05.2015 Ramakrishna

Reddy, A3 parked bike on the main road and when PW5 requested to remove the bike in view of arrival of VIP he failed to obey the instructions of PW5, thus he took the key of the bike. Meanwhile VIP person passed the main road then PW6 came to near him after completion of his duty at

Mudireddypally then, A1 to A3 started arguing with him since he took the key of the bike. When PW6 interfered in the issue the A1 came near PW6 and caught hold of his collar and bet him. PW5 tried to passify the issue between them the A1 to A3 did not hear to his words and again bet PW6 who is discharging his official duties. PW5 also identified A1 and A2 who were standing in the court hall. In cross examination witness wrongly identified the A1 and A2 and admitted that, since the incident took place long back as such, he cannot identify the accused persons.

12.PW1, 3 who are the eye witnesses to the incident turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, as both of them deposed in one voice that, they do not know any facts of the case. During cross

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

examination by the learned APPO their 161 statements are marked as

EXP1, P3. The mediators to the scene of offence panchanama are examined as PW2, 4 who also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution and both of them deposed that, no scene offence panchanama was conducted in their presence and on the request of police they scribed their signatures on some papers. EXP2, P4 are the signatures of PW2, 4 on scene of offence panchanama,Though learned

A.P.P.O has cross examined them U/S 145/154 of Indian Evidence Act, nothing was elicited in favour of prosecution. The LW7,B. Ashok Kumar,

SI of Police, I.O who investigated the case died, hence his evidence was closed which is fatal to the case of prosecution.

13. On perusal of the evidence on record, the eye witnesses, mediators not supported the case of prosecution. Even the evidence of PW5 and 6 not corroborated with each other. PW6 deposed that, after noticing an altercation of persons with PW5 he approached him so as to rescue him, where as the evidence of PW5 reveals that, PW6 after completion of his duty he came near him while returning to PS meanwhile, A1 to A3 started arguing with him. Even PW5 failed to identify the A1 to A3. Except oral evidence the I.O failed to seize the torn shirt of PW6 nor referred PW6 to doctor so as to establish the case against the accused persons. Except the evidence of PW5 and 6 there is nothing on record to connect the accused persons with the offence alleged against them. Even the evidence of PW5 and 6 not corroborated with each other that too both of them are the interested witnesses which must be scrutinized cautiously.

None of the independent witness supported the case of prosecution.

Hence, basing on the uncorroborated evidence of PW5 and 6 one cannot convict the accused persons which is not reliable, hence the point is answered against the prosecution.

14.For the foregoing reasons this court comes to a conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/S 353 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

15. IN THE RESULT:

The accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 353 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/S 255(1) CrPC and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time U/S 437(A) CrPC.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1st day of December, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: P. Shekar None

P.W.2: H. Buggaiah

P.W.3: Mohd Ubed

P.W.4: K.Raju

P.W.5: M.Venkataiah

P.W.6: A.Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is the 161 CrPC statement of PW1 Nil

Ex.P2: is the signature of PW2 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P3: is the 161 CrPC statement of PW3

Ex.P4: is the signature of PW4 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P5: is the 161 CrPC statement of PW6

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jadcherla

CC No.340 of 2015 01.12.2022

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

CALENDAR CASE NO.340 OF 2015

1. Date Of Offence : 22.05.2015

2. Date of Complaint : 22.05.2015

3. Date of Apprehension : 28.05.2015

4. Commencement of Trial : 15.02.2018

5. Closure of Trial on : 07.11.2022

6. Date of Judgment : 01.12.2022

7. Complainant : The State of Telangana Through S.H.O. of P.S. Rajapur

8. Name of the accused : A1. Mekala Dhastagiri, S/o Jangaiah, Age: 27 years, Caste: Boya,

Occ: Private Job, R/o Rajapur village.

A2. Palamoni Lingam, S/o Ramulu, Age: 27 years, Caste: Mudiraj,,

Occ: Business, R/o Rajapur village.

A3. Bandakadi Rama Krishna Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, age: 34 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Milk Business, R/o Rajapur village of

Balanagar Mandal.

9. Offence : U/S. 353 r/w 34 IPC

10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

11. Result : In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S 353 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/S 255(1) CrPC and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time U/S 437(A) CrPC.

Prl Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

Lr.Dis.No. 2022, dated

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge,At Mahabubnagar.

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

Thursday, the 1st day of December, 2022

PRESENT: SMT.T. LAKSHMI,

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

JADCHERLA.

C.C No. 291 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana, represented through

Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Rajapur.

… Complainant AND

P. Laxminarayana, S/o P. Narshimulu, Age: 33 years, Caste: Mudiraj,

Occ: Driver of Tanker lorry No. AP22T3369, R/o Badepally, Jadcherla.

.... Accused

* *

This case is coming on 01.12.2022for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O appearing on behalf of the State and of

Sri M.A.Malik Shakir, Advocate for accused and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by S.I of police P.S.Rajapur filed the charge sheet against to the accused in Cr.No.143/2015 for the offence Under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:

(a)On 05.05.2015 at 18:00 hours a report was received from

PW2 stating that on 05.05.2015 at about 13:30 hours his brother

Goplapuram Mallesh was crossing the NH-44 road at Mudireddypally X

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

road on bicycle meanwhile one petrol tanker bearing No. AP22P3369 which was proceeding towards Jadcherla from Hyderabad and driven in rash or negligent manner and hit to bicycle, due to which his brother sustained injuries to head and other body parts, who was shifted to SVS,

Mahabubnagar for treatment, where doctor referred to ESI hospital,

Erragadda, Hyderabad for better treatment, hence the report.

(b) Basing on the report LW10, Md Riyaz Ahmed, SI of Police, PS

Balanagar registered a case in Cr.No.143/2015 for the offence punishable

Under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation LW10 examined and recorded the statement of PW2 at PS. On 05.05.2015 G. Mallaiah succumbed to injuries, thus LW10 altered the section of law to 304-A IPC from 337 IPC.

LW10 visited CHC, Shadnagar and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Mallaiah in the presence of PW4, LW7, Y. Gopal Reddy, where he also examined and recorded the statements of PW1, 2, 3, 5 and

6. On 06.05.2015 at 12:00 hours LW10 visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW4, LW7, Y. Gopal Reddy. On 09.05.2015 at 11:30 hours the accused voluntarily came to PS and surrendered before LW10 who admitted his guilt, thus 41-A CrPC notice served on him. Later the CD file was handed over to LW11, B. Ashok Kumar, SI of Police who also visited the scene of offence and re-examined the witnesses and after completion of further investigation and after collecting relevant document, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable Under Section 304-

A of Indian Penal Code.

3.Basing on the charge sheet allegations and on perusal of other material available this court took cognizance for the offence Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused the copies of case records were furnished to him as contemplated Under Section. 207 Cr.P.C.

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

5.Accused is examined Under Section.251 Cr.P.C who denied the commission of offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked EXP1 to EXP6.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused is examined

Under Section.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in Telugu, to which he denied the evidence, however he reported no defense on his behalf.

8. Now the point for determination are:

1. Whether the accused was driving the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident?

2. Whether the crime vehicle was driven in rash or negligent

manner and whether the accident occurred due to that

reason?

3. Whether the prosecution proved its case and established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offense punishable Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code?

9. Point 1 & 2 :

It is the case of the prosecution the accused drove petrol tanker bearing No.AP22T3369 and hit to the bicycle of Mallaiah, who was crossing the road at Mudireddypally X roads, due to which he sustained injuries over his head and other body parts and succumbed to injuries while obtaining treatment.

10.In order to prove the case for the offence Under Section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code prosecution has to establish that,

1. Accused is the the rider of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of the accident.

2. Accused drove the same in either negligent or rash manner which resulted in death of G. Mallaiah.

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

11.It is admitted fact that deceased G. Mallaiah died in motor accident on 05.05.2015 while he was crossing the road on bicycle at

Mudireddypally X roads. PW2, defacto complainant lodged the report under EXP1. The undisputed PME report reveals that cause of death was due to "Head injury and intracranial Hemorrhage". All these aspects are not disputed by the accused.

12. PW2, the defacto complainant, brother of deceased G. Mallaiah deposed that, about 10 years back while he was at Nandigama, he came to know through one of his villager that, his brother met with an accident and shifted to hospital and on the way to hospital, his brother succumbed to injuries, hence he lodged the report under EXP1 before PS Balanagar.

Admittedly PW2 is not an eye witness to the incident, nor his evidence reveals about the driver of the crime vehicle and movement of the crime vehicle.

13. PW1, who is the wife of the deceased G. Mallaiah turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The eye witness is examined as PW3 who also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. EXP2 is the 161 statement of PW3. PW5, 6 who are the circumstantial witnesses and relatives to deceased G. Mallaiah also turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. EXP5, P6 are the 161 statements of PW5, 6. The mediator to the scene of offence is examined as PW4 who deposed that, police Balanagar conducted scene of offence panchanama under EXP3 and inquest panchanama under

EXP4 in his presence and in the presence of LW7. The learned APPO cross examined PW1, 3, 5 and 6 but nothing elicited in favour of prosecution. The Investigation Officers LW10, 11 died, hence their evidence was closed. The evidence of LW8 and 9 were given up by the learned APPO as no purpose will be served even if they are examined in view of hostile evidence of PW1, 3, 5 and 6 as rightly in my opinion.

14.After evaluating the evidence on record, this court come to the conclusion that that I.O in this case fixed the accused as the driver of the

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

crime vehicle merely on his surrender in the P.S, which itself is not sufficient. Further the confession of the accused before the I.O is hit by

Section 25 of Indian evidence Act and same shall not be basis for conviction of the accused. When driver of the crime vehicle was not arrested on the spot immediately after the occurrence of the road accident and when eye witnesses has not identified the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle before the police at the time of the investigation or

before the court during the trial, he cannot be connected to the occurrence

of driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the driver of the crime vehicle or rash or negligent act of the accused. Further eventhere is no evidence on record whether deceased Mallaiah intruded into the way of crime vehicle or the crime vehicle hit the bicycle of deceased Mallaiah. Just because the death occurred, it shall not be presumed that the driver of the crime vehicle was at fault. In the case on hand there is no direct evidence as to how the crime auto was moving and as how it came in physical contact and hit the bicycle. In any road accident, the movement of the crime vehicle and rate of speed and manner of movement and diligence of the crime vehicle to avert the accident soon before the occurrence are very important to hold the guilty of the crime vehicle driver. Here there is no such evidence as PW3, eye witness turned hostile along with PW1, 5, 6 also not supported the case of prosecution. Basing on the sole testimony of PW2, who is not an eye witness to the incident one cannot connect accused to the alleged offence, relying on his evidence, here accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

15.In view of the above discussion this court hold that prosecution has not placed satisfactory evidence that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and drove the crime vehicle either in rash or negligent manner at the time of accident. Hence the points are answered against the prosecution.

16. Point No.3:

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

For the foregoing reasons and in view of above discussion this court come to a conclusion that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable Under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.

17. In the result, the accused is not guilty for the offence Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code for which he is acquitted Under Section 255(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of 6 months. No property was deposited before this court hence there is no order with regard to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1st day of December, 2022.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla.

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: G. Buchamma None

P.W.2: G. Srisailam

P.W.3: P. Ram

P.W.4: S. Yadi Reddy

P.W.5: B. Shankaraiah

P.W.6: Anjaneyulu

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: is police report -Nil-

Ex.P2: is the 161 statement of PW3

Ex.P3: is the scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P4: is the inquest panchanama

Ex.P5: is the 161 statement of PW5

Ex.P6: is the 161 statement of PW6

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jadcherla

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: AT JADCHERLA

CALENDAR CASE NO.291 OF 2015

1. Date Of Ofeene : 05.05.2015

2. Date of Complaiet : 05.05.2015

3. Date of Appreheesioe : 09.05.2015

4. Commeenemeet of Trail : 01.11.2016

5. Closure of Trial oe : 07.11.2022

6. Date of Judgmeet : 01.12.2022

7. Complaieaet : The State of Telaegaea Through S.H.O. of P.S. Balaeagar

8. Name of the annused :

P. Laxminarayana, S/o P. Narshimulu, Age: 33 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Driver of Tanker lorry No. AP22T3369, R/o Badepally, Jadcherla.

9. Ofeene : U/s. 304AA of IPC.

10. Fiedieg of the Court : Foued eot guilty

11. Result : Ie the result, the accused is not guilty for the offence Under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code for which he is acquitted Under Section 255(1) of CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for the period of 6 months. No property was deposited before this court hence there is no order with regard to property.

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla

CC No.291 of 2015 01.12.2022

Lr.Dis.No. 2022, dated Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, At Mahabubnagar

TSMA0B0000612019

Presented on : 05-03-2019 Registered on : 05-03-2019 Decided on : 10-10-2024 Duration : 5 years, 7 months, 5 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

AT JADCHERLA ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

(Presided Over by Smt.T.Lakshmi)

CC/22/2019

Exhibit No.

(PROSECUTION): Gaddala Shiva Through Police Station Officer PS Jadcherla 85 , Occ.hotel business. R/o.Old bazaar area Badhepally, Jadcherla

JADCHERLA MAHABOOBNAGAR

VERSUS : Sakkani Naveen Yadav alias Golla Naveen Age: 19 Occupation : R/o. Old bazaar area Badhepally Jadcherla ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for appearing for Sakkani Naveen Yadav alias Golla Naveen Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 323 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 10-10-2024)

Accused is appeared before the court and voluntarily admitted. Upon their being presented copies of case documents are furnished to them. The Accused is examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation is explained and read over to them for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC, in Telugu, for which he pleaded guilty. This Court warned the accused and informed him about the punishment prescribed for the offence committed by him. Even then the Accused is admitted their guilt. Hence, this Court feels that the guilt pleaded by the Accused is voluntary. Hence, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 323 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.252 of Cr.P.C., for the said offence. On questioning with regard to the quantum of sentence, the Accused is pleaded that they are pleaded that his entire family is depending on them. considering the offence committed by him is his first offence, prayed the Court to take lenient view. Perused the record. Having considered the submissions made by the Accused is and by considering the request of this Court is of the considered opinion that instead of sentencing the accused to Jail imposing fine on them would meet the ends of justice. In the result the accused is found guilty for the offense punishable U/Sec. 323 of IPC and convited him U/Sec 252 of CrPC. Accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for Sec. 323 of IPC and In default of payment of fine accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of ____________. Total fine amount of (Rupees. One thousand only) As there is no case property was deposited in this case, hence their is no order as to property.

1. The accused is/are acquitted of the offence/offences punishabl

2. e under 323 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, of , of , of , vide Section 235(1) or 248 (1) or 255(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. His bail bonds are cancelled. He is set at liberty.

4. After appeal period,

(a) The seized {property} destroyed/returned to (name and address)./confiscated to State

(b) The seized (Property2}be destroyed/returned to (name and address)./confiscated to State

(c) The seized (Property3) be destroyed/returned to (name and address)./confiscated to State

Date : 10-10-2024 (Smt.T.Lakshmi)

I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

JADCHERLA MAHABOOBNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Smt.T.Lakshmi) I Addl JCJ cum JMFC

JADCHERLA

MAHABOOBNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS