Sri. T. Vasudevan

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILKALURIPET.

Present: T. VASUDEVAN,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakluripet.

Wednesday,the 3 rdday of May, 2019

Calendar Case. No. 461 of 2017

Between:-

State Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chilakaluripet Urban P.S.,…Complainant.

And

Chemitikanti Subrahmanyam @ Subbu S/o Siva Sankararao, 42 yrs, Telaga by Caste, D.No.167-185, Patimeeda, near Ankamma Chettu, Chilakaluripet Town, Rider of TVS Scotty bearing No. AP 07 BM 6643.…Accused.

This case is coming on 29-04-2019 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri A. Pavan Kumar, and of Sri S. Sudhakar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban police Station, submitted a Report against the accused in Cr.No. 316 of 2017, for the offence punishable Under Section 332 of I.P.C.

PROSECUTION CASE

2.

The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-

Accused Ch. Subrahmanyam @ Subbu is resident of Chilakaluripet town and the victims L.W.1 S. Venkatarao, driver in APSRTC and L.W.2 Gottipati

Venkateswarlu, Conductor in APSRTC are employees of APSRTC of Chilakaluripet depot. While so, on 17.10.2017 when victims/L.Ws 1 and 2 being bus driver and conductor of APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 29 Z 0573 running in between

Narasaraopet and Chirala, around 1.45 PM reached Kalamandir Center, Chilakaluripet from Chirala to go Narasaraopet, there was heavy traffic, by that time, therefore,

L.W.1 bus driver stopped the bus, at that time, accused who came there on his motor cycle TVS Scotty bearing No. AP 07 BM 6643, by keeping his motor cycle by the side

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet of road came to L.W.1 bus driver and abused him by questioning ‘why he stopped the bus at the road’. When L.W.1 replied to him stating that because of heavy traffic he could not move his bus, accused by picking up quarrel with L.W.1, pulled him down from driver’s seat by caught holding his shirt, fisted his left jaw and temple. L.W.2 being conductor witnessing the same, intervened to rescue P.W.1. Accused also attacked on L.W.2 at his right eye by fisting and it was witnessed by L.Ws 4 to 6 namely P. Pandurangarao, G. Sankar and J. Bala Krishna neighboring shop keepers, mean while, people gathered and by taking advantage of mOB gathering, accused escaped. Later on, P.W.1 approached Chilakaluripet Urban police station with L.W.2 and presented a report against the incident.

L.W.8 M. Uma Maheswararao, the then SI of Police by receiving report from the victim/P.Ws 1 and 2 verified its contents and satisfied upon the allegations registered the contents of FIR as a case in Cr.No.316/17 for the offence punishable U/s 332 of IPC and send the injured to hospital for treatment, took up investigation.

During the investigation, L.W.8 SI secured and examined L.Ws 1 to 6 witnesses named as above, recorded their statements, proceeded to scene of offence, observed it and drawn rough sketch, later, L.W.7 Dr. B. Baby Rohini treated P.Ws 1 and 2/victims and issued opinions that the injuries received by L.Ws 1 and 2 are simple in nature, therefore, SI secured wound certificates of L.Ws 1 and 2 from L.W.7 Dr. Baby Rohini, served notice upon accused to appear before this court as and when summoned and by completing the investigation submitted final report for the offence punishable U/s 332 of IPC.

COGNIZANCE

3.

After careful perusal of material on record and Police report, the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offence Under Section 332 of I.P.C against the accused.

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

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED BEFORE TRIAL

5.

This Court examined the accused Under Section 239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed for the offence punishable Under Section 332 of I.P.C., against accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

6.

During the trial, to prove the guilty of accused beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to PW.8 by exhibiting Exs.P.1 to P9 documents. P.W.1 S. Venkatarao is the bus driver, P.W.2 G. Venkateswarlu/bus conductor are the victims. P.W.3 S. Nagesh Babu, P.W.4 P. Pandu Rangarao, P.W.5 G.

Sankar and P.W.6 J. Bala Krishna are witnesses to the offence. P.W.7 Dr. B. Baby Rohini is the doctor who treated the injured. P.W.7 M. Umamaheswararao who is the investigation officer. Amonfg the documents rlied, Ex.P1 Report of P.W.1 to police,

Exs.P7 and P8 wound certificates are important documents.

EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED AFTER TRIAL

7.

After closure of prosecution side evidence, examined the accused

Under Section 313 Cr.P.C, since there is incriminating evidence brought against accused.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire material on record.

Now the points for determination are:

9.

1. Whether the victims/P.Ws 1 and 2 are public servants as defnied U/s 21 of IPC ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 332 of IPC ?

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

ARGUMENTS:-

10.

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of

the prosecution submitted that witnesses P.Ws 3 to 6 though turned

hostile, the victims/injured P.Ws 1 and 2 evidence and their identification of accused as the person who caused injuries are all successfully proving the identity of accused, as well as, his involvement in committing the offence, therefore, opinion evidence given by doctor/P.W.7 also supported, hence, prayed to convict the accused since evidence of victims/injured is well corroborated by medical opinion and as there was

no undue delay in presenting report to police. Learned counsel for the

accused submitted that admittedly P.W.1/driver stopped the bus on wrong

road, therefore, some one questioned P.W.1 about his act, but, to take advantage of the own mistake of P.W.1, he reported this false case, therefore, the independent witnesses P.Ws 3 to 6 turned hostile, hence, evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, remained as self serving statements, since they are interested witnesses and there is undue delay in reporting the crime, therefore, prayed to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

POINT No.1:-

11.

In an allegation like this alleging that the accused obstructed public servants P.Ws 1 and 2, causing hurt to deter them in discharging their lawful duties, thereby, committed the offence punishable U/s 332 of IPC, it is for the prosecution to prove and to establish at first that the victims are public servants. To support the same evidence available on record is the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2 and 8. Documentary evidence available is the contents in Ex.P1 Report and the contents in FIR Ex.P8.

Contents in Ex.P1 Report are goes to show that P.Ws 1 and 2 are driver and conductor in APSRTC Narasaraopet depot and they run bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 0573 on 17.10.2017 in between Narasaraopet and Chirala. Oral evidence of P.W.1 S.

Venkatarao and oral evidence of P.W.2. G. Venakteswarlu also goes to show the same.

The Investigating officer P.W.8 M. Uma Maheswararao evidence and contents in Ex.P8

FIR are also goes to show the same. No where in the cross examination of P.Ws 1, 2 and 8, accused denied the status of P.Ws 1 and 2 as employees, except, putting a

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet suggestion that APSRTC bus driver and conductor will not come under the definition of public servant U/s 21 of IPC. No supporting material either in the form of oral or documentary placed to support the plea of accused as suggested to P.Ws 1 and 2 that they are not public servants. On the other hand accused no where denied that P.W.1 is driver in APSRTC and P.W.2 is conductor in APSRTC of Narasaroapet depot. It is clear from this evidence available on record that P.W.1 is driver and P.W.2 is conductor in

APSRTC of Narasaraopet depot.

Sec.21 of Indian Penal code while explaining the status of public servants

U/s 21 at 12 th entry explained that Every person :-

a) In the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or

commission for the performance of any public duty by the government;

b) In the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or

under a central, provincial or State Act or a government company as

defined in Section 617 of the companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).

On plain reading of the explanation/definition of public servant available in IPC, Sec.21 it is clear that under 12th entry/clause(b) every person in the service or pay of local authority or corporation established by our central government are public servants. It appears that A.P. State road transport corporation had been established by the sate of A.P., under APSRTC Act, 1950 and it is the governing of law of service of pay of P.Ws 1 and 2 who are driver and conductor of APSRTC. P.Ws 1 and 2 being driver and conductor of Narasaraopet depot are public servants as explained under entry 12(b) U/s 21 of IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered.

POINT No.2:-

12.

In order to prove the guilt of accused that the accused being rider of TVS scooty around 1.45 PM on 17.10.2017 when P.W.1 being driver of bus APSRTC bearing

No. AP 29 Z 0573 was at Kalamandir center, put up quarrel with P.W.1 and in that quarrel attacked on P.Ws 1 and 2, fisted them, thereby, obstructed public servants, in

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet discharging their lawful duties and also caused hurt to them, thereby, punishable U/s 332 of IPC prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 8 by producing Exs.P1 to P9 documents as noted above. P.Ws 1 and 2 are the victims. P.Ws 3 to 6 are witnesses. P.W.7 is the

Doctor. P.W.8 is the SI of police. Among the documents relied, Ex.P1 is the Report,

Ex.P8 is the FIR, Ex.P9 is the Rouch sketch and Exs.P6 and P7 are wound certificate of

P.Ws 1 and 2 are important documents.

13.On careful consideration of the evidence available on record and appreciation of the same, this court is of the view that prosecution proved the

guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, thereby, accused is liable for

conviction. Contents in Ex.P1 Report and oral evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 goes to show that on 17.10.2017 around 1.45 PM when both running RTC bus from Chirala to

Narasaroapet bearing No. AP 29 Z 0573 reached Kalamandir center at Chilakaluripet and because of the traffic by that time, P.W.1 could not move his bus. Witnessing the same, accused being scooterist by parking his motor cycle came to P.W.1, picked up quarrel with him abusing him in filthy language, caught hold the shift of P.W.1, pulled out him from driver’s seat and when P.W.2/conductor intervened to rescue P.W.1, accused also fisted P.W.2, as a result, P.Ws 1 and 2 received injuries as found by P.W.7

Dr. Baby Rohini as mentioned in Exs.P6 and P7 wound certificates. To support this, prosecution examined P.Ws 3 to 6 who are neighboring shop keepers at Kalamandir center. Though P.Ws 3 to 6 in their previous statements under Exs.P2 to P5 stated to police that they witnessed the quarrel, in where, accused attacked P.Ws.1 and 2, fisted them knowing them as public servants and committed the offence, but, during the trial, all the witnesses P.Ws 3 to 6 namely S. Nagesh Babu, P. Pandu Rangarao, G.

Sankar and J. Bala Krishna deposed nothing attracting the offence. All of them deposed that they do not know about the case facts, since, they witnessed nothing, thereby, all the witnesses turned hostile to prosecution. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws 3 to 6 who deposed nothing against the accused attracting the offence is no way helpful to prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.

14.Remaining evidence available on record is the evidence of P.W.7 Dr. Baby

Rohini and P.W.8 M. Uma maheswararao, SI of police coupled with the contents in

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

Exs.P6 to P9 documents. It is settled principle of law as ruled by Hon’ble High court of

A.P. in various judgments including in between Chagallamarri Subbaiah and two others VS state of A.P., reported in 2009(2) ALD Crl.121 that “When the

evidence of injured is well supported by the medical evidence and if there is

no undue delay in reporting the crime, such evidence is to be considered to

convict the accused”. Hon’ble supreme court in between State of Uttarpradesh

VS Naresh and another reported in 2011(4) ALD (Crl.) 382 S.C., ruled that

“Evidence of injured is a special piece of evidence, his presence cannot be

doubted and much weightage is to be given to the evidence of injured while

considering the same”. In obedience to above rulings it is clear that if there is undue delay in reporting the crime, evidence of injured is supported by medical evidence, such evidence of injured is to be considered as special evidence, due weightage is to be given to rely upon it and to convict the accused. Further it is also settled principle of law that the evidence has to be weighed but not counted as ruled by Hon’ble Supreme Court Between Dharampal Patel VS the State of

Chhattisgarh reported in AIR 1983 S.C.126 in where their lordships ruled that “It is the quality need to be considered but not the quantity”.

15.Though evidence of P.Ws 3 to 6 goes to show that they turned hostile and their evidence is no way helpful to support the evidence of P.W.1, but, evidence of

P.W.1 establishing that the accused was the person who attacked on him on 17.10.2017 at Kalamandir center/scene of offence in Chilakaluripet, fisted him while running the bus and caused hurt knowing P.W.1 as public servant, as well as, the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused also attacked on him, when P.W.2 tried to rescue

P.W.1 and knowingly fisted upon his face also to obstruct them in discharging their lawful duties as public servants. The incident reported was occurred in mid day at broad day light around 1.45 PM. It is the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 that accused caught hold shirt of P.W.1, dragged out P.W.1 from driver’s seat, fisted him. Evidence of P.W.2 also goes to show that he witnessed it, intervened it, tried to rescue P.W.1, by that time accused fisted him also. Under the circumstances, this court is of the view that sufficient opportunity was there to P.Ws 1 and 2 to remember the accused though he is a stranger and to identify him again, thereby, identification of accused

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet by P.Ws 1 and 2 at court during trial can be safely considered as the person who attacked P.Ws 1 and 2. Medical evidence of P.W.7 Dr. Baby Rohini and contents in

Exs.P6 and P7 wound certificates goes to show that immediately after the incident, within two hours P.W.7 treated P.Ws 1 and 2 at Government hospital, Chilakaluripet around 3.45 PM and found an abrasion near left eye brow and another abrasion over left cheek of P.W.1, as well as, a swelling over right eye of P.W.2 G.

Venkateswarlu/conductor of the bus. Evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 is that accused is the person who attacked on them and causing these injuries. Contents in Exs.P6 and P7 wound certificates are also goes to show the same by supporting the oral evidence of

P.Ws 1 and 2. Evidence of P.W.8 SI of police M. Uma Maheswararao is also supporting the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2/injured, as well as, P.W.7 doctor who treated the injured. Evidence of P.W.8 SI of Police is that around 3 PM on 17.10.2017 he received a report from P.W.1 who came with P.W.2 and found injuries on the face of both, therefore, referred them to hospital with a medical memo, thereby, P.W.7 doctor around 3.45 PM. Treated both P.Ws 1 and 2 under Exs.P6 and P7 wound certificates.

All these facts proved through oral evidence of P.Ws 1,2,7 and 8 together goes to show that accused was the person who attacked on P.Ws 1 and 2 on 17.10.2017 around 1.45 PM at Kalamandir center, Chilakaluripet by fisting P.Ws 1 and 2 and causing hurt. Immediately around 3 PM I.e., within one hour 15 minutes from incident

P.Ws 1 and 2 approached police/P.W.8, presented Ex.P1 Report, therefore, P.W.8 SI of police registered Ex.P8 FIR by sending P.Ws 1 and 2 to Government hospital.

Accordingly, P.Ws 1 and 2 reached Chilakaluripet Government Hospital, by 3.45 PM and obtained treatment from doctor. All these circumstances and facts proved are well establishing that there was no undue delay in presenting report under Ex.P1 and the medical opinion of P.W7 Doctor is well supporting the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2/injured, therefore, evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2/injured is to be given weightage by considering as special evidence because P.Ws 1 and 2 who are totally strangers to accused may not had/have any malafide intention to implicate the accused into this crime unless the reported facts are true, therefore, prosecution placed sufficient material in proof of the offence committed.

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

16.To throw a reasonable suspicion upon the evidence of P.Ws 1,2,7 and 8 and to gain from it, accused cross examined P.Ws 1 and 2 stating that it may not be possible to any one to open driver’s door from out side of bus, since, the door will be at the height of 6 or 7 feet from ground and further caught holding and pulling out of driver from driver’s seat may not be possible, therefore, it is a created case and there is undue delay in reporting the crime to police. On careful consideration of the evidence available on record, this court is of the view that there is no strength in the plea taken by the accused. As discussed above, there was no undue delay appears in reporting the crime. Incident had been occurred at around 1.45 PM, where as, the bus was at heavy traffic in the scene of offence. Subsequently, the bus had been removed from the traffic by P.Ws 1 and 2, there after, reported the crime to police, thereby, one hour fifteen minutes gap was there which is an ordinary delay, because of above events, but not undue delay effecting the case of prosecution. Further plea that it may not be possible to accused to caught hold P.W.1 at driver’s seat by opening window from 6 or 7 feet is also not appears to reliable, because, the driver’s seat and driver’s door is meant for driver’s access from out side of the bus, thereby, every driver will enter into the bus from the ground out side of the bus, hence, possibility to open bus drivers door from out side is there for every one.

17.It was also pleaded by accused that P.Ws 1 and 2 are interested, therefore, their evidence amounts to self serving and as the independent witnesses not supported the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, their evidence becomes weak piece of evidence and sought for acquittal. In view of above discussion by relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in where, it was ruled by their lordships that

“The evidence of victims is to be considered as a special evidence and the

same got due weightage” this court is of the view that as there is no evidence establishing the intention of P.Ws.1 and 2 to implicate the accused into the offence, hence, this plea may not sustain.

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

18.Accused further took a plea by eliciting from P.Ws 1 and 2 in their cross examination that P.W.1 brought the bus in a wrong way on that day as admitted by him in his cross examination that “It is true the way in which I brought the bus on that day to the scene of offence is a wrong route”, submitted that prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of the wrong committed by P.W.1.

On careful consideration of the evidence of P.W.8 SI of police who is competent person to say that whether that road was wrong rout, this court is of the view that there is no strength in the plea taken. Evidence of P.W.8 SI of police that ”It is not true to

suggest that accused came in a wrong route on that day at that time

knowing that it was one way”. P.W.8 SI of police prepared rough sketch Ex.P9 and it does not discloses one way at the scene of offence. Contents in Ex.P9 Rough sketch coupled with the evidence of P.W.8 goes to show that there is no proof that the place in where the offence was occurred was the wrong way than the regular way or one way, hence, mere admission of P.W.1 who had no specific knowledge about the routes and traffic restristrictions at Chilakaluripet may not be a ground to reject the case of prosecution in toto, since, it will not go into the routes of prosecution case. Further one should not be permitted to take the law into their hands, since, law enforcing machinery is there to do the same.

19.In view of above evidence discussed based on facts placed and the documents produced, this court is of the view that evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 who are victims and injured appears to be reliable and trust worthy, as well as, free from suspicion, since, they are injured and no way connected to the accused prior to the incident. Evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 injured also supported by medical evidence of

P.W.7/Doctor and as there was no undue delay in reporting the crime, this court is of the view that accused is guilty for the offence punishable U/s 332 of IPC for voluntarily obstructing P.Ws 1 and 2 public servants by causing hurt to them, there by, preventing them from discharging their duties as driver and conductor in APSRTC.

RESULT/FINDING

20.

In the result, this court found that accused is guilty for the charge punishable under section 332 of I.P.C, therefore, this court convicted the accused

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

U/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, Transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

SENTENCE HEARING:

21.Upon hearing the accused and the Learned Counsel as well as, the

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution with regard to quantum of sentence, accused submitted that its first mistake and there are dependents upon him who includes his mother attending Kidney’s problem and if he is confined in Jail/prison his family will suffer, therefore, prayed to pass appropriate sentence. The learned counsel for accused submitted that accused had/have no any criminal antecedents and consider it as first mistake and to pass appropriate sentence.

22.Upon hearing, and on perusal of the circumstances under which the offence committed, and that it is proved that the accused attacked on public servant in connection with a traffic problem which caused much inconvenience to public and it appears that the attack was not a planed one, this court is of the view that instead of sentencing the accused to prison, it may be just in the interest of justice to punish him financially by considering that it may not be a fit case to extent the benefits provided U/Sec 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act.

SENTENCE

23.Accordingly, this court sentenced the accused/ChemitikantiAccordingly, this court sentenced the accused/Chemitikanti

Subrahmanyam @ Subbu to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousandSubrahmanyam @ Subbu to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a only) in default of payment of fine, shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Six months for the proved offence punishable period of Six months for the proved offence punishable U/sec.332 of IPC. U/sec.332 of IPC.

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

COMPENSATION AWARDED

24.Out of the total fine amount Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only), an amount of Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand only), and Rs.4,000 (Rupees

Four Thousand only), in total an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight

Thousand Only) shall be payable as compensation to the

victims/P.W.1/Sunnapu Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Sriramulu/driver and P.W.2/G.

Venkateswarly, S/o. Surayanarayana/Conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C Bus as

compensation U/sec.357 of Cr.P.C. Ordered the office to communicate the result of this Judgment to P.Ws.1 & 2/ S. Venkatarao & G. Venkateswarlu to come and claim the compensation after the appeal time is Over.

25.It is further informed to the accused that he got statutory right to prefer an appeal to the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur within appeal period.

Accused submitted that he got means to engage an advocate if any appeal is preferred.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, Transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W.1 S. Venkatarao/ bus driver, None

P.W.2 G. Venkateswarlu/bus conductor,

P.W.3 S. Nagesh Babu,

P.W.4 P. Pandu Rangarao,

P.W.5 G. Sankar,

P.W.6 J. Bala Krishna,

P.W.7 Dr. B. Baby Rohini/ Doctor,

P.W.8 M. Umamaheswararao/ Investigation officer.

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P1 Report of P.W.1 to police,

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P6 Wound certificate

Ex.P7 Wound certificate

Ex.P8 FIR

Ex.P9 Rough sketch

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

NIL

Material Objects marked for

NIL

A.J.C.J, CH.PET.

C.C. 461 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

DATE OF

Offence Report of Apperhensi Release CommenceClousure ofSentence or complainanton of on bailment if trial trial Order accused 17.10.2017 17.10.2017 22.12.2017 - 18.03.2019 22.04.2019 03.05.2019

Explanation for the delay: This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S against the accused U/Sec.332 of IPC. On 09.11.2017 case was taken on file. On 22.12.2017 copies were furnished to the accused. On 18.07.2018 accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and Charge U/s.332 of IPC against accused is framed read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence case is posted for trial. On 18.03.2019 P.Ws. 1 & 2 were examined and Ex.P1 and marked. Prosecution side evidence closed on 22.04.2019 after examining P.W. 8 and Exs.P8 & P9 were marked on behalf of prosecution. As there is incriminating material existing against the accused, on 23.04.2019 examined the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All accused denied evidence and reported no defence side evidence, hence defence evidence was closed. On 29.04.2019 heard both side arguments. On 03.05.2019 Judgment Pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment).

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.461/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Complainant: State: Sub-Inspectior of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. (Cr.No.316/2017 of Chilakaluripet Urban P.S.)

Accused Chemitikanti Subrahmanyam @ Subbu S/o Siva Sankararao, 42 yrs, Telaga by Caste, D.No.167-185, Patimeeda, near Ankamma Chettu, Chilakaluripet Town, Rider of TVS Scotty bearing No. AP 07 BM 6643.

Offence : U/Sec. 332 of IPC

Finding : Accused is Guilty U/sec. 332 of IPC therefore, Convicted him U/sec. 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

Sentence or order :Sentenced the accused/Chemitikanti Subrahmanyam @ Subbu Sentenced the accused/Chemitikanti Subrahmanyam @ Subbu to pay fine of to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, shall under go simple Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine, shall under go simple Imprisonment for a period of Six Months for the proved offence U/sec. 332 of IPC. Out of total Imprisonment for a period of Six Months for the proved offence U/sec. 332 of IPC. Out of total fine an an amount of Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand only), and Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four fine an an amount of Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand only), and Rs.4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand only), in total an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) shall be Thousand only), in total an amount of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Only) shall be payable as compensation to the victims/P.W.1/Sunnapu Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Sriramulu/driver payable as compensation to the victims/P.W.1/Sunnapu Venkateswar Rao, S/o. Sriramulu/driver and P.W.2/G. Venkateswarly, S/o. Surayanarayana/Conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C Bus as and P.W.2/G. Venkateswarly, S/o. Surayanarayana/Conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C Bus as compensation U/sec.357 of Cr.P.C. compensation U/sec.357 of Cr.P.C.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to:

1. The Hon’ble Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILKALURIPET.

Present: T. VASUDEVAN,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakluripet.

Friday,the 3 rdday of May, 2019.

Calendar Case. No.362 of 2017

Between:-

State Represented by

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. … Complainant.

And

1. Kambampati Daveedu @ David, S/o. Yesuratnam, aged 60 years,

R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.(case against accused No.1 abated)

2. Kambampati Anandababu, S/o. Subbarao @ Daveedu @ David, aged 40 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

3. Kambampati Skylab, S/o. Daveedu @ David, aged 36 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

4. Kambampati Rubenu @ Rubeen, S/o. Daveedu @ David, aged 30 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

5. Kambampati Ruthamma @ Ruthu, W/o. Anandababu, aged 36 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

6. Kambampati Santhi, W/o. Skylab, aged 30 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

7. Kambampati Merigrees @ Meri, W/o. Rubenu @ Rubeen, aged 30 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

8. Kambampati Mariyamma @ Manimma, W/o. Daveedu @ David, aged 50 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.

9. Kambampati Jahn Paul, S/o. Yesuratnam, aged 50 years, R/o. Vinukonda vari veedi, Vijayawada. Now at R/o. Gopalamvaripalem village, Chilakaluripet Mandal.

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

10. Palaparthi Prema, W/o. Mohan, aged 45 years, R/o. D. No. 4-9-115, LIC colony, Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District. Now at Gopalamvaripalem Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal.

11. Kambampati Davasahayam, S/o. Yesuratnam, aged 55 years, R/o. Copalamvaripalem Village,

Chilakaluripet Mandal. ... Accused.

This case is coming on 29-04-2019 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri A. Pavan Kumar, and Sri. K. Rama Krishna, P. Veeraiah Advocates, for the accused and upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural Police Station , submitted Report against the accused in Crime Number 59 of 2017, for the offence punishable Under Section 323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2.PROSECUTION CASE

The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

All the accused Nos.1 to 11, L.Ws.1 to 3/B. Jordhan, B. Ruthamma, E.

Rojamma are relatives to each other. L.W.1/B. Jordhan and L.W.3/E. Rojamma are daughters to L.W.2/B. Ruthamma. There is a land in an extent of 1 ½ acre at

Gopalmvaripalem which was gifted to L.W.2/mother at the time of marriage of

L.W.2. As L.W.2 was settled at Vijayawada, she left that land as barrem for some period. Subsequently, disputes arose between L.Ws.1 to 3 and accused families for ownership of that land and in that connection on 18.07.2017 L.Ws.1 to 3 went to Gopalamvaripalem village, stayed at the house of accused No.11/K.

Devasahayam. Knowing the arrival of L.Ws.1 to 3 into the village, all the accused

Nos.1 to 10 went there and put up quarrel with L.Ws.1 to 3, while, they stood at the house of accused No.11/K. Devasahayam, L.Ws.1 to 3 went to Baptist Church

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

at Gopalamvaripalem. Accused also gone there accused Nos.1, 5 to 7 cough hold the tuft of L.W.1, others cough hold tuft of L.Ws.2 and 3 dragged them out of church fisted and kicked. Other accused abused L.Ws.1 to 3 threatening they if there came towards property/land they will kill them. The same had been brought to the notice of L.W.4/K. Israel and L.W.5/K. Masthan who promise to do justice to L.Ws.1 to 3 but, they did nothing, therefore, L.W.1/B. Jordhan on 20.07.2017 around 9.00 p.m., night approached L.w.9/P. Udayababu, Sub-

Inspector of Chilakaluripet Rural P.S and presented written report.

Upon receiving the report from L.W.1/B. Jordan, L.W.9/S.I verified it contents, satisfied upon the allegations, therefore, registered the same F.I.R in

Cr. No. 59/2017 for the offence punishable U/sec. 323, 354 & 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and took up the investigation, having noticed injuries on body of L.W.1, L.w.9/S.I sent L.W.1 to Government Hospital, Chilakaluripet for treatment, accordingly,

L.W.8/Dr. B. Baby Rohini, treated L.W.1 and found simple injuries, therefore, she issued certificate by opining that the injury found on the body of L.W.1 was simple in nature. L.W.9/S.I visited the scene of offence observed it drawn Rough

Sketch secured other witnesses recorded their statements and as the material collected, not discloses the requirements for the offence punishable U/sec. 354 of

I.P.C, with the permission of the then S.D.P.O, Narasaraopet,dt: 12.08.2017, deleted Sec. 354 of I.P.C, secured by accused by serving notice, directed them to appear before this court as and when summoned and by completing the investigation submitted final report for the above offences punishable U/sec. 323, 509 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

3. COGNIZANCE

After careful perusal of material on record and Police report the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offences Under Section 323, 506 & 509 of I.P.C. against accused.

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED BEFORE TRIAL

This Court examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed for the offences punishable under section 323, 506 & 509 of I.P.C. against accused and read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

During the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 by exhibiting

Exs.P1 to P8 documents. Among the witnesses P.W.1/B. Jordhan, P.W.2/B.

Ruthamma and P.W.3/E. Rojamma are victims and informant, P.W.4/K. Israel,

P.W.5/K. Mastan, P.W.6/K. Mahesh, P.W.7/K. Audibabu are witnesses to the offence, P.W.8/Dr. B. Baby Rohini is the doctor who treated P.W.1 and P.W.9/P.

Udayababu is the Sub-Inspector who investigated the offence. Among the documents relied, Ex.P1 Report of P.W.1 to police, Ex.P6 Wound certificate of

P.W.1, Ex.P7 F.I.R, Ex.P8 Rough Sketch are the important documents.

7.EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED AFTER TRIAL

After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused had been examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence on their behalf.

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

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

9.ARGUMENTS-

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are victims and injured is well supported by medical evidence of P.W.8/doctor, as well as, the contents in Ex.P.6 Wound certificate, therefore, prayed to convict the accused.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that it is pre-planned crime reported against the accused to gain control over them and to harass them in view of admitted civil litigation. There are so many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which renders the evidence of prosecution witnesses as untrustworthy and suspicious one. Delay in reporting the crime is also supporting the same, therefore, prayed to acquit the accused, by giving benefit of doubt.

10.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offence committed under

sections 323, 506 & 509 of I.P.C” ?

11.POINT:-

In order to prove the allegations and charge framed against the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 by exhibiting Exs.P1 to P8 documents. As noted above, P.Ws.1 to 3 are Victims, P.Ws.4 to 7 are Witnesses,

P.W.8 is Doctor and P.W.9 is the Investigation officer.

12.On careful consideration of the evidence available on record, appreciation of evidence placed before this court, this court is of the view that though prosecution able to establish that there was a quarrel on that day, at that time as contained in the report of Ex.P1, prosecution failed in proving that, in that quarrel, accused in furtherance of their common intention, caused hurt to

P.W.1 by defaming her with an intention to outrage her modesty and committed

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

criminal intimidation by threatening them with dire consequences. Allegations made as contained in Ex.P1 Report are goes to show that the offence had been occurred on 18.07.2017 around 12.00 noon. Scene of offence is at Church in

Gopalmvaripalem, where as, the evidence of witnesses examined goes to show contra to the contents in Ex.P1 Report. P.W.1/B. Jordhan deposed in her evidence that it was 11.30 a.m., on that day and the scene of offence was at the Church in

Gopalamvaripalem as contained in Ex.P1 report. P.Ws.2 and 3 also in their evidence deposed like so, where as, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in their cross examination goes to show that the incident and quarrel was taken place at the house of accused No.11/K. Devasahayam as contained in her portion of previous statement Ex.D.1. Though she denied that she did not stated like so to the police,

P.W.9/P. Uday Babu, S.I evidence is that P.W.1 stated like so. P.W.2 evidence is that

P.Ws.1 to 3 entered into the land and disputed by engaging a tractor and while ploughing the same, disputes arose. All the accused obstructed them and sent away to the Church. The name of tractor driver is Venu of Gopalamvaripalem.

P.W.3/B. Rojamma evidence in her cross examination also goes to show that she did not stated to police as contained in Ex.D.3 that the quarrel was at the house of accused No.11. Though she denied it, evidence of P.W.9/S.I goes to show that she stated like so. The offence was occurred on 18.07.2017 around 12 noon, where as, the report under Ex.P1 Report had been given on 20.07.2017 around 9.00 p.m., it goes to show that, there are two days delay in presenting the report.

Evidence available to explain the delay is the evidence of P.W.9/S.I and contents in Ex.P1 Report, as well as, Ex.P7 F.I.R.

13.P.W.9/P. Uday Babu, S.I, and contents in Ex.P7 F.I.R, as well as, endorsement under Ex.P1 Report goes to show that the report was presented on 20.07.2017 only around 9.00 p.m., and the report presented is a written report brought by P.W.1/B. Jordhan, where as, P.W.1/B. Jordhan in her cross examination deposed that she herself scribed the contents in Ex.P1 Report, two days after the incident in the evening she scribed it. Evidence of P.W.2/B. Ruthamma/mother to

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

P.W.1 in her cross examination deposed that her youngest son who is an Advocate in Vijayawada joined and associated with them, while, presenting report under

Ex.P1 and that Advocate/son to P.W.2 scribed Ex.P1 upon the narration of witnesses, where as, the evidence of P.W.3/E. Rojamma in her cross examination is that “Ex.P1 report had been scribed by police upon their narration, it itself shows that there is no trustworthiness in preparing report under Ex.P1 and presenting the same to police. One says that she scribed it, another says that it was scribed by an Advocate and another witness says that it was scribed by police, it itself shows that none of these witnesses may not have full knowledge about the contents in Ex.P1 Report, where as, P.W.6/K. Mahesh says in his cross examination that he does not know who scribed Ex.P1 Report, since it was brought to him in writing and Ex.P1 contains the date as 18.07.2017. If it is so, evidence of P.W.1 in her cross examination that she scribed Ex.P1 Report, two days after the incident in the evening is casting a doubt upon the contents in

Ex.P.1 Report.

14.Further admittedly there was a delay of two days in presenting the report. P.Ws.1 to 3 says that due to intervention of elders i.e., P.Ws.4 to 7 who promised to do justice, the delay was occurred in presenting the report, where as, P.Ws.4 to 7 in their evidence deposed nothing in support of prosecution, thereby, their evidence not explains the reason for delay in presenting the report.

Admissions of P.W.2/mother and P.Ws.1 and 3 that her youngest son associated with P.Ws.1 to 3 while presenting report and he prepared Ex.P1 report after two days to the incident are all goes to show that because of due deliberations and consolidations among the family members who admittedly got civil disputes with accused family, might have prepared Ex.P1 contents as suggested to them in their cross examination. Though the delay of two days is of no matter, if other material sufficiently explains the guilt of accused, but, because of the admissions of P.Ws.1 to 3/witnesses and investigation officer/P.W.9 in their evidence that there is civil litigation, as well as, criminal cases reported between accused

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

family and P.Ws.1 to 3 in connection with the land disputes, the delay in presenting the report acquires much significance and this delay is not explained properly with reasons by the prosecution.

15.As discussed above the scene of offence is at Church in

Gopalamvaripalem. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed in their evidence that while they were at

Church on 18.07.2017 around 12.00 noon, all the accused came there among them, accused No.2/K. Anandababu instigated the women accused to go and dragged the women out of Church, accordingly, women dragged out from the church, fisted and kicked them by abusing in filthy language. Accused No.2/K.

Anandababu tear the Jacket of P.W.1, thereby, defamed her and insulted her, where as, the witnesses said to be witnessed the same who are P.Ws.4 to 7 turned hostile. Except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the doctor who treated

P.W.1, there is no other material available on record attracting the essential requirements for the offences punishable U/sec. 323, 509 and 506of I.P.C.

16.P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that accused No.2/ K. Ananda Babu fisted her and caused injuries at her body, where as, it is not appears in the statement of P.W.1 to police or in the report Ex.P1. P.W.2/B. Ruthamma stated that all the accused attacked on her and fisted indiscriminately, but, no injuries had been received by P.W.2, P.W.3/E. Rojamma also as deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 and she further stated that accused No.2/K. Anandababu associated with accused No.5/K. Ruthamma attacked on her, fisted, pulled her saree and torn her saree and further accused No.3/K. Skylab threatened her in dire consequences, if so, there is no medical evidence that P.W.3 also received injuries, since P.W.1 obtained treatment from P.W.8/Doctor, the other injured P.Ws.2 and 3, why not obtained treatment though they associated with P.W.1 is creating a doubt as suggested to P.Ws.2 and 3 that as there was no such scuffle and receiving injuries by P.Ws.2 and 3, they did not obtained treatment. Further evidence elicited from P.Ws.1 to 3 in further cross examination with regard to the reason

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

for quarrel also appears to be suspicious one, P.W.1 evidence is that P.Ws.1 to 3 went to Gopalamvaripalem in order to Plough the land in dispute, but, they did not plough it by engaging in a tractor. While, P.Ws.1 to 3 were in preparation to plough the land, this incident occurred in church. P.W.1 herself admitted in his cross examination that they did not engage any tractor on that day for ploughing, where as, P.W.2/mother who said to be associated with P.W.1 by that time in her cross examination deposed that “They entered into the land by engaging a

tractor and while ploughing the land, disputes arose, all the accused

obstructed them and sent away the tractor, there after, they reached the

church and said tractor belongs to one Venu of Gopalamvaripalem”.

P.W.3/E. Rojamma in her cross examination deposed that they never went to the land on that day. All these contradictory statements of P.Ws.1 to 3 goes to show that there is no trustworthiness in their evidence. The further evidence elicited in their cross examination with regard to the day on which they went to the scene of offence/village is also supporting this view. P.Ws.1 to 3 evidence in chief is that on 18.07.2017 they went to the scene of offence/ Gopalamvaripalem village with a view to plough the land and the incident was occurred on the day itself. Where as, in the cross examination of P.W.1 admitted that “we went to the scene of offence/village on that day of offence itself.” P.W.2/mother to

P.W.1 in her cross examination admitted that “we went to the scene of offence village two days prior to the incident”. P.W.3 another daughter to P.W.2 deposed in her cross examination by admitting that “we went to the scene of offence the day prior to the reported incident”. All these three admissions of

P.Ws.1 to 3 in their cross examination creates a doubt with regard to the ploughing the land and about the incident. P.W.1 says that P.Ws.1 to 3 went to the scene of offence village on the day of offence only, where as, P.W.2 mother to

P.W.1 says that two days prior to the report of incident. P.W.3 says that the day prior to the reported incident, they went to the village, it creates a reasonable doubt as an ordinary prudent man upon visit of P.Ws.1 to 3 at a time and their presence at Gopalamvaripalem.

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

17.P.Ws.1 to 3 in their evidence in chief deposed that accused in that quarrel Torne Jacket of P.W.1 and pulled saree of P.W.3 by defamed them in the eye of public. P.Ws.1 to 3 having stated so, and having approached the police together with Ex.P1 report, not choose to hand over the torne cloths to police.

P.W.1 in her cross examination admitted that the torned / upper garments not handed over to police. P.W.3 also admitted the same that police not collected torned Jacket of mine and P.W.1. If the accused attack on P.Ws.1 to 3 was true, in where, the accused No.2 by associating with accused No.5 Torned the Jacket and

Saree, thereby, outraged the modesty by defaming in the eye of public is true, and an Advocate who is brother to P.Ws.1 & 3, as well as, son to P.W.2 associated with them while presenting report Ex.P1 to police, what prevented them in handing over those cloths to police as evidence, is creating a reasonable doubt as an ordinary prudent man and as there was no such incident, no evidence placed

before the court as suggested to P.Ws.1 to 3 in their cross examination.

18.In view of above contradictions and omissions, as well as, an exaggerated version in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are one and the same family members and witnesses, this court is of the view that as their evidence is not supported by the independent witnesses evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7. In view of the admitted civil litigation, this case might have been brought into existence as suggested to witnesses in their cross examination is appears to be probable and reliable than the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 3 admitted in their cross examination that none of the accused except accused No.11/K. Devasahayam and

P.Ws.1 to 3 are not residents of scene of offence Gopalamvaripalem village. All the accused Nos.1 to 10 are residing at different places in Guntur District, if so, the occasion for which all these accused present on that day at village and what prompted them to do so is not properly explained by the prosecution. Further in her cross examination of P.W.1 admitted that “My Grand parents got property

at Gopalamvaripalem, Narasaropet, Uppumaguluru. A fixed deposit also

available at Narasaraopet banck. It is true in connection with these fixed

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

deposits disputes arose and cases instituted. Our family members filed

suit O.S 195/1995 against accused No.1, on the file of Hon’ble Prl. Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Narasaraopet”. P.W.2/ mother to P.W.1 in her cross

examination admitted that “after the demise of my father Devasahayam,

disputes arose between our family and accused family with regard to

sharing of my grand father’s earnings. Still fixed deposits of my father at

Narasaraopet and Gudivadapalem banks are remained un disbursed. For

the past 20 years, land in the scene of offence village remain without

cultivation. This case reported in connection with land disputes. My self

and my another daughter earlier reported crime against Narasaraopet

police in connection with property dispute. Police close that case stating

that it was connected with properties, thereby, is of civil nature. Once we

approached M.L.S.C, Narasaraopet for amicable settlement of properties,

but, it was unsuccessful, since, we quarreled there.” All these admissions in their cross examination are evidencing long standing disputes in between accused and P.Ws.1 to 3 family, pertaining to properties of families including lands and fixed deposits, thereby, civil and criminal litigations are also there among them. These circumstances, coupled with the contradictory statements/evidence of witnesses in respect of day when they visited the scene of offence village, why all the accused all of a sudden presented in that village and why the delay was occurred in presenting the report who prepared and submitted written report under Ex.P1, as well as, non production of material object/Jacket and Saree are all together goes to show that prosecution failed in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt as charged against them.

Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 discloses that there was only a petty quarrel/scuffle at the land in dispute at Gopalamvaripalem when they went and attempt to plough it and in that quarrel as suggested to P.W.1 she might have received injuries accidental fall as suggested to P.W.1/victim and P.W.8/doctor, but, because of above referred admitted civil and criminal disputes among the family in connection with properties, after due deliberations and consolidations of P.Ws.1

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

to 3 with their brother who is an Advocate might have presented this report under Ex.P1 to police as suggested to witnesses in their cross examination, therefore, all these contradictions had been occurred and failed in explaining the delay. Under these facts, circumstances of evidence discussed above, this court came to a conclusion that the prosecution failed in proving the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charged offences punishable U/sec.323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C, therefore, this court concluded that the accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.RESULT/FINDING

In the result, this court found that accused are not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C, accordingly, this court acquitted them U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused obtained shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, Typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

1. P.W.1 B. Jordhan(victim/informant)None

2. P.W.2 B. Ruthamma (victim)

3. P.W.3 E. Rojamma (victim)

4. P.W.4 K. Israel (witness)

5. P.W.5 K. Mastan (witness)

6. P.W.6 K. Mahesh (witness)

7. P.W.7 K. Audibabu (witness)

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

8. P.W.8 Dr. B. Baby Rohini

9. P.W.9 P. Udayababu, Sub-Inspector, (investigation Officer)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

1. Ex.P.1: is the report to police dt: 18.07.2017,

2. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4

3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5

4. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.6

5. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.7

6. Ex.P6: Wound certificate of P.W.1, dt: 22.07.2017

7. Ex.P.7: F.I.R

8. Ex.P8: Rough Sketch

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

Ex.D1: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1

Ex.D2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2

Ex.D3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3

Ex.D4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3

Material Objects marked for

NIL

A.J.C.J, CH.PET.

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

DATE OF

Offence Report of Apprehensi Release CommenceClosure ofSentence or complainanon of on bailment if trial Order taccusedtrial 18.07.2017 20.07.2017 12.02.2019 -19.03.2019 15.04.2019 03.05.2019

Explanation for the delay: This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S against the accused U/Sec.323, 506 & 509n r/w 34 of IPC. On 05.09.2017 case was taken on file. On 12.02.2019 copies were furnished to the accused. On 11.09.2018 accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and Charge U/s. 323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of IPC against accused are framed read over and explained to them in Telugu. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence case is posted for trial. On 19.03.2019 P.Ws.1 to PW.3 were examined and Ex.P1 marked. On09.04.2019 P.Ws.4 to 7 were examined and Exs.P2 to P5 were marked. On 15.04.2019 P.Ws.8 and P9 were examined and Exs.P6 to 8 were marked. On the same day Prosecution evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating material existing against the accused on 25.04.2019 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Hence defence evidence was closed. On 29.04.2019 heard arguments on both sides. On 03.05.2019 Judgment Pronounced Vide Separate Judgment.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.362/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Complainant: State: Sub-Inspectior of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. (Cr.No.59/2017 of Chilakaluripet Rural P.S.) Accused No.1 Kambampati Daveedu @ David, S/o. Yesuratnam, aged 60 years, R/o.

Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet.(case against accused No.1 abated)

Accused No.2Kambampati Anandababu, S/o. Subbarao @ Daveedu @ David, aged 40 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.3Kambampati Skylab, S/o. Daveedu @ David, aged 36 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.4Kambampati Rubenu @ Rubeen, S/o. Daveedu @ David, aged 30 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.5Kambampati Ruthamma @ Ruthu, W/o. Anandababu, aged 36 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.6Kambampati Santhi, W/o. Skylab, aged 30 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.7Kambampati Merigrees @ Meri, W/o. Rubenu @ Rubeen, aged 30 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.8 Kambampati Mariyamma @ Manimma, W/o. Daveedu @ David, aged 50 years, R/o. Shalim Nagar, Narasaraopet. Accused No.9Kambampati Jahn Paul, S/o. Yesuratnam, aged 50 years, R/o. Vinukonda vari veedi, Vijayawada. Now at R/o. Gopalamvaripalem village, Chilakaluripet Mandal. Accused No.10 Palaparthi Prema, W/o. Mohan, aged 45 years, R/o. D. No. 4-9-115, LIC colony, Hayath Nagar, Rangareddy District. Now at Gopalamvaripalem Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal. Accused No.11Kambampati Davasahayam, S/o. Yesuratnam, aged 55 years, R/o. Copalamvaripalem Village, Chilakaluripet Mandal.

C.C. 362 of 2017A.J.C.J, Ch.Pet.

Offence : U/Sec. 323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or order :In the result, this court found that accused are not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 323, 506 & 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C, accordingly, this court acquitted them U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused obtained shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Sd/- T. Vasudevan

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to:

1. The Hon’ble Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: T. VASUDEVAN,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

Tuesday, the 30 thday of April, 2019.

alenderC Case . No. 197/2018 Between:- State Represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S., … Complainant.

And

Edala Venkateswarlu, S/o Naraiah, 28 yrs, Norh Kondayapalem village, Varukuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District, Driver of Bolero Mahindra Truck bearing No. AP 16 TH 3099. … Accused.

This case is coming on 25-04-2019 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri.A. Pavan Kumar, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri Dande Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court delivered the following :-

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet rural Police Station, laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime Number 87 of 2018, for the offence punishable Under Section 338 of IPC.

2.PROSECUTION CASE

Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused Eedala

Venkateswarlu was driver to Bolero Mahindra Truck bearing No. AP 16 TH 3099 and he drove it in a rash or negligent manner at National High way No.16 opposite to Boppudi cold storage, Boppudi village of Chilakaluripet rural on 30.3.2018 around 9.30 A.M., thereby, unable to control it and dashed the injured/L.W.2 Putta Kondalarao who riding his motor cycle, as a result of hitting on back side, the injured/L.W.2 fell down and sustained grievous bleeding injuries on the back of his head and also scratches at his body, thereby, lost his consciousness. L.W.5 Damarla Srinivasarao a passer who witnessed it, rushed to the injured, identified him as known, thereby, informed to Ambulance,

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

accordingly, he had been shifted the injured to GGH, Chilakaluripet for treatment, thereafter, L.W.5 also intimated to L.W.1 Putta Rambabu who is son to injured, accordingly, L.Ws 1,3 and 4 rushed to hospital, Chilakaluripet, found

L.W.2 with injures and shifted him to Amaravathi hospital, Guntur for better treatment. Dr. S. Sivarathnakara Rao, M.B.B.S., Amaravathi hospital, Guntur informed to police about medico legal case admission, accordingly, on intimation

L.W.7 M. Madhusudhanarao, head constable of Kothapaet police station went to

Amaravathi hospital, recorded the statement of L.W.1 Putta Rambabu, since, the injured was in unconscious stage and transmitted the same to the station house officer, Chilakaluripet Urban on point of jurisdiction.

L.W.8 P. Udayababu, the then SI of Police, Chilakaluripet rural, received the statement of L.W.1, verified it and found primafacie material, thereby, registered the contents as FIR in Cr.No.87/2018 for the offence punishable U/s 337 of IPC on 31.3.2018 and took up the investigation. During the investigation, L.W.8 P. Udayababu, SI of Police secured and examined L.Ws 1 to 5 namely P. Rambabu, P. Kondalarao, P. Pitchamma, P. Satish and D. Srinivasa Rao, recorded their statements, visited the scene and prepared a rough sketch.

Subsequently on 2.4.2018 he served notice on the accused, secured him and examined him, verified vehicle records and directed the accused to appear

before this court as and when summoned. Thereafter, on 7.5.2018 he secured

wound certificate of injured/L.W.2 from L.W.6 doctor who opined that the injuries received by injured/L.W.2 are grievous in nature. L.W.8/SI of Police altered the provision of law from 337 of IPC to 338 of IPC and submitted final report by completing the investigation and intimating to the chairman cum principal

District Judge, Motor vehicles claims Tribunal, Guntur.

3. COGNIZANCE.

After careful perusal of material on record and charge sheet the

Cognizance of the offence Punishable Under Section 338 of I.P.C was taken against the accused.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

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

5. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED BEFORE TRAIL

Examined The accused Under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the allegations for the offence Punishable Under Section 338 of I.P.C was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

During the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 including the injured as P.W.2 by exhibiting Exs.P1 to P5 documents. In the cross examination of P.Ws 1 and 4 contradictions had been exhibited as Exs.D1 to D3. P.W.1

Rambabu is the informant, P.W.2 P. Kondalalarao is the injured, P.W.3 P. Satish,

P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao are witnesses. P.W.5 Dr. S. Siva Ratnakar rao is the doctor who treated injured. P.W.6 P. Madhu Sudhana Rao, ASI is the police officer who recorded the statement of P.W.2 at Amaravathi hospital and P.W.7 P. Uday Babu is the SI of Police who conducted the investigation. Among the documents, Ex.P1

Statement of P.W.1 to police, Ex.P2 Wound certificate, Ex.P3 Hospital intimation,

Ex.P4 FIR and Ex.P5 rough sketch are important documents. Portion of previous statements of P.Ws 1 and 4 had been exhibited as contradictions from Exs.D1 to

D3.

7. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED AFTER TRIAL

After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused had been examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same and reported no defence on his behalf.

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

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

9.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution submitted during his arguments that though victim/P.W.2 became unconscious, his evidence to the extent that a bolero jeep dashed him, thereby, he became unconscious is to be considered, coupled with the evidence of eye witness Dhamarla Srinivasarao is to be considered whose evidence is successfully establishing the identity of accused and his rash or negligent driving of bolero vehicle, therefore, as the injuries received by P.W.2 are well proved from the documentary evidence under Ex.P2 Wound certificate supported by

P.W.5 Doctor prayed to convict the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec 338 of IPC. The learned counsel for the accused submitted by filling written arguments that as admitted by the investigating officer/P.W.7 P. Uday babu, SI of Police and as contained in Ex.P1 Statement of P.W.1 the offence alleged was a hit and run case and the vehicle dashed, as well as the driver to it are unknown, but, subsequently investigation agency shown this accused as offender. To establish his identity, though examined P.Ws 1 to 7, there is no evidence incriminating against the accused and the evidence of P.W.4 who claimed to be an eye witness is nothing but an exaggerated version, thereby, his identification of accused before the court at first time is a weak piece of evidence, thereby, his evidence alone may not be sufficient to convict the accused, hence, prayed to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

10.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution established the identity of accused as driver od crime vehicle as on the date of offence ?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beond

reasonable doubt for the offence punishable Under Section 338

of I.P.C by proving his rash or negligent driving ?

11. POINTS:-

It is well settled law as ruled by various Hon’ble higher courts including Hon’ble High court of judicature at Hyderabad in Between K.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

Nageswara Rao VS State of A.P., represented by public prosecutor

reported in 2003(2) ALT Crl. (326) A.P., that “In a case of motor accident

alleging death or injuries to the victim, in order to prove the offence, the

prosecution must prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash or

negligent manner and until and unless prosecution is able to prove that

the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident

and he drove it in a rash or negligent manner, conviction cannot sustain”.

In obedience to this ruling, it is for the prosecution to place material in the form of oral or documentary evidence establishing the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle in this case, as well as, he drove it in a rash or negligent manner by dashing the injured/P.W.2, resulting injuries to him. For this purpose prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 7 by exhibiting Exs.P1 to P5 documents.

In order to throw a reasonable suspicion upon the case of prosecution and to establish the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused while cross examining

P.Ws 1 and 4, contradictions in their previous statements had been brought under Exs.D1 to D3.

12.Point No.1 :-

To prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle Bolero

Mahindra Truck bearing No. AP 16 TH 3099, witnesses available are P.W.1 P.

Rambabu/informant, P.W.2 P. Kondalarao/victim, P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao/eye witness and P.W.7 P. Uday Babu/SI of Police.

13.On careful reading of the contents coupled with the oral evidence of

P.W.5/doctor and P.W.2/injured and also the contents in Ex.P2 Wound certificate and Ex.P1/Statement of P.W.1, it is clear that P.W.2 received injures, thereby, he had been admitted at Amaravathi hospital on 30.3.2018, obtained treatment from

P.W.5/doctor under Ex.P2 Wound certificate, in where, the doctor found impressed of injuries on the body of P.W.1. On perusal of the cross examination portion of P.W.2/injured, P.W.5/doctor it discloses that the accused not denied treatment of P.W.2 at the hospital of P.W.5/doctor under Ex.P2 wound certificate,

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

but the accused specifically denied that he was not responsible for those injuries received by P.W.2, for which, P.W.5/doctor treated. Now it is for the prosecution to prove that those injuries received by P.W.2, for which, P.W.5 treated are the injuries caused by the accused by his rash or negligent driving on the date of offence at the scene of offence as reported to police under Ex.P1 statement of

P.W.1.

14.On careful reading and consideration of the oral evidence of P.W.1 P.

Rambabu who gave statement under Ex.P1 to police and the contents in Ex.P1 statement of P.W.1 are goes to show that he had no personal knowledge about the offence as well as the manner of committing it by the accused while driving the crime vehicle. Contents in Ex.P1 and the oral evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that his evidence is only hearsay, since, he came to know all these facts through D.

Srinivasarao only and he gave Ex.P1 statement with the information given by

P.W.4 while his father/P.W.2/injured was in an unconscious stage. Hence, evidence of P.W.1 is no way helpful to satisfy upon the identity of accused, since, he himself admitted in his evidence in chief itself that he came to know about the accident through some one in the village on 30.3.2018, thereby, he rushed to

Government hospital, Chilakaluripet and found his father, there after, shifting him to Guntur for treatment.

15.P.W.3 Putta Satish evidence also goes to show that he had no personal knowledge about the offence, since, he also came to know through P.W.1 about the injuries to his father and his admitting in hospital, therefore, he rushed to

Government hospital, Chilakaluripet and found him with injuries and shifted him to Amaravathi hospital, Guntur. Evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 being hearsay in nature and their evidence does not disclosing the identity of accused as driver to crime vehicle, since, they did not witnessed him. Evidence of P.W.3 is no way helpful to the case of prosecution to establish the identity of accused as driver to crime vehicle.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

16.Other witnesses available for this purpose are P.W.2/injured and P.W.4

D. Srinviasarao/eye witness. Evidence of P.W.2/injured goes to show that “while

he was riding his motorcycle from Valaparla village to Lingamguntla

village near cold storage, driver of Bolero Mahindra jeep came in a rash

or negligent manner, dashed him from his back side, thereby, he received

injuries and became unconscious. When he gain conscious, he was at

hospital in Guntur”, it itself goes to show that as the vehicle said to be dashed

P.W.2 motor cycle from back side and after the incident he became unconscious, there was no possibility to P.W.2 to witness the driver of vehicle who dashed him, as well as, to identity that driver. The same also appears to be admitted by him through his evidence that “I had no personal knowledge about the accused/driver” as contained in his evidence in chief. Under these circumstances, the only evidence left over to prove the identity of accused is the evidence of P.W.4 D. Srinviasarao who claimed to be an eye witness. On combined reading of the oral evidence of P.W.1/informant who came to know through P.W4 about the details of accident, contents in Ex.P1 Statement, evidence of injured/P.W.2 and the investigating officer/P.W.7 P. Uday Babu, SI of

Police coupled with the evidence of P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao, this court is of the view that evidence of P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao is appears to be not reliable and trust worthy because of the exaggerated versions, omissions and contradictions elicited from him.

17.Evidence of P.W.1 who presented Ex.P1 statement, no where, in his statement stated under Ex.P1 and deposed in his evidence that P.W.4 Dhamarla

Srinivasarao informed to him about the incident, but P.W.1 deposed that “on

30.3.2018 I came to know through some of the villagers that his father

while riding motor cycle, met with an accident”. If informing the incident by

P.W.4 to P.W.1 is true, what prevented P.W.1 in deposing the same is not properly explained from and out of the evidence available on record. Evidence of

P.W.2/injured not at all disclosing that he had been followed by P.W.4 D.

Srinivasarao disclosing that there was a possibility to P.W.4 to witness the

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

offence. Evidence of P.W.7 P. Uday Babu, SI of Police who investigated the offence in his cross examination admitted that “Since the crime vehicle went as hit

and run, the directions of vehicle was not shown in Rough

sketch……………...P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao not stated any physical features of

vehicle driver and the SI of Police further added that as per his

investigation, it is hit and run case”. SI of Police further admitted in his cross examination that “P.W.4 D. Srinviasarao also not stated that he witnessed the driver and capable of identifying driver if witnessed again”. If it is so, evidence of P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao who deposed in his evidence in chief that “on

30.3.2018 P.W.4 travelled in his motor cycle behind the motor cycle of

P.W.2 and at some distance near Thatapudi cold storage bridge, bolero

driver because of his rash or negligence dashed on the back of P.w.2, as a

result, P.W.4 fell down beneath the vehicle and the crime vehicle Bolero

dragged P.W.2 towards 5 or 6 feet and stopped, as well as, the driver of

vehicle got down from the vehicle and tried to pull out the motor cycle, in

the mean while, P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao reached, found the accused pulling

out the injured/P.W.2 from the vehicle, assisted the driver and separated

P.W.2, thereby, he can identify the driver of crime vehicle Bolero and

according to his identification accused is driver of crime vehicle” appears as not reliable and trust worthy and all these facts were not stated to investigation agency/P.W.7 during investigation, thereby, these facts stated by

P.W.4 at first time before the court during trial is nothing but an exaggerated version or omission which may go into the rootes of prosecution. No where, P.W.1 informant who got information through P.W.4 stated these facts that P.W.4 followed P.W.2 and assisted the driver in pulling out P.W.2 from the vehicle, as well as, his capacity to identify the driver of crime vehicle. More so, contradictions elicited from P.W.4 witness are had been admitted by P.W.8 SI of police under Exs.D2 and D3 are also strengthening this view. P.W.4 deposed that

“He never stated to P.W.8 SI of police as contained in portion of previous

statement Ex.D2 that the crime vehicle driver went away from the scene

by not stopping”.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

18.Admissions of P.W.8 SI in his cross examination that P.W.4 did not stated to him that driver of vehicle pulled out P.W.2 from the vehicle and P.W.4 also assisted, are all goes to show that there is no trust worthiness in the evidence of P.W.4 who claimed to be an eye witness and his very presence and witnessing the incident at that time and place is not appears to be reliable and probable, therefore, the exaggerated version of P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao which may go into the rootes of prosecution case are not sufficient to satisfy upon the identity of accused as driver since P.W.4 did not stated to police that he witnessed the driver and he can capable of identifying him, as well as, failure in furnishing the descriptive particulars of driver of crime vehicle.

19.Under above discussed facts, evidence available on record it is clear that evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 is not at all establishing the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle on that day, where as, evidence of P.W.4 is not appears to be reliable and trust worthy, hence, only evidence available to satisfy upon the identity of driver of crime vehicle is the evidence of P.W.7/SI of police only.

Though SI of Police/P.W.7 deposed in his evidence that he verified the crime vehicle records, as well as, license of accused and came to a conclusion that he was the person who committed the offence, those vehicle records verified and driving license of accused perused by P.W.7 SI of Police are not placed before the court. Under these circumstances, how P.W.7 SI of police came to a conclusion that the accused was driver of crime vehicle bolero is not properly explained by the prosecution. Further admission of P.W.7 SI of police in his cross examination goes to show that “Accused is not the owner of crime vehicle and the SI did

not choose to examine the registered owner in order to confirm that the

accused was driver of crime vehicle on that day”. These admissions of investigation officer coupled with absence of documentary evidence and the untrust worthy deposition of P.W.1 are all goes to show that prosecution failed in establishing the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle bolero jeep at that time and place as contained in Ex.P1 Statement, therefore, a reasonable doubt

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

arose as an ordinary prudent man in respect of driving crime vehicle by accused.

Accordingly, this point answered against the prosecution.

20.Point No.2 :-

It is settled Principle of law as ruled by Hon’ble High court of

Judicature in the above referred judgment in Between K. Nageswara Rao VS

State of A.P., represented by public prosecutor reported in 2003(2) ALT

Crl. (326) A.P., that “unless the identity of accused is established as

driver of crime vehicle on the date of offence apart from proving his rash

or negligent act of driving, resulting into injuries or death, convicting

the accused may not be just”. Herein, in view of above discussion with regard to point No.1 it is clear that prosecution failed in establishing the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle Bolero truck at that time and place as contained in the statement of P.W.1. Therefore, presuming that he drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, resulting injuries to P.W.2 is not permissible and probable, since, the identity of accused as driver and his rash or negligent driving the crime vehicle shall be proved by the prosecution. Under the above discussed circumstances and evidence placed before the court, this court is of the view that as there is no reliable and trust worthy evidence establishing the identity of accused as offender by driving vehicle and identification of accused by P.W.4 at first time before the court without test identification parade may not sufficient to proceed against the accused as ruled by Hon’ble High court of judicature at Hyderabad in Between Tata Arjun Rao VS State of A.P., reported in 2019(1) ALD Crl. (97), hence, this court concluded that the prosecution failed in establishing the identity of accused, as well as, his involvement in committing the rash or negligent driving, therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal, accordingly, this point is answered against the prosecution.

21.RESULT/FINDING

In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for the

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

offence punishable Under Section 338 of IPC, accordingly, this court acquitted the accused U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , typed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30 th day of April, 2019.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence : None.

P.W.1 Rambabu / Informant,

P.W.2 P. Kondalalarao / Injured,

P.W.3 P. Satish / witness,

P.W.4 D. Srinivasarao / witness.

P.W.5 Dr. S. Siva Ratnakar rao / Doctor.

P.W.6 P. Madhu Sudhana Rao, ASI

P.W.7 P. Uday Babu / SI of Police

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

Ex.P1 Statement of P.W.1 to police,

Ex.P2 Wound certificate,

Ex.P3 Hospital intimation,

Ex.P4 FIR and

Ex.P5 Rough sketch

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

Ex.D1 Portion of previous statement of P.W.1.

Ex.D2 Portion of previous statement of P.W.4.

Ex.D3 Portion of previous statement of P.W.4.

Material Objects marked for

- NIL –

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,, Chilakaluripet.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

DATE OF

Offence Report of ApprehensioCommencemenClosure ofSentence or complainantn Release t trial Order of accused on of trial bail

30.03.2018 31.03.2018 20.07.2018 - 20.02.2019 15.04.2019 30.04.2018

Explanation for the delay: This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S., against the accused U/Sec.338 of IPC. This case was taken on file on 29.05.2018. On 20.07.2018 copies were furnished to the accused. On 16.10.2018 accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C and read over and explained to him in Telugu. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence case is posted for trial. On 20.02.2019 P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 marked. On 12.03.2019 P.Ws.5 and 6 were examined and Exs.P2 and P3 marked. On 15.04.2019 P.W.7 examined and Exs.P4 and P5 were marked. On the same day prosecution evidence closed. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.04.2019 and reported no defence evidence. On 25.04.2019 heard arguments of both sides. On 30.04.2019 Judgment Pronounced Vide Separate Judgment.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.197/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Complainant: State: Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Rural P.S. (Cr.No.87/2018 of Chilakaluripet Rural P.S.)

Accused:Edala Venkateswarlu,S/o Naraiah, 28 yrs,Norh Kondayapalem village, Varukuntapadu Mandal, Nellore District,

Driver of Bolero Mahindra Truck bearing No. AP 16 TH 3099.

Offence : U/Sec. 338 of IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or order : In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 338 of IPC, accordingly, this court acquitted the accused U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused if any shall stands cancelled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to:

1. The Hon’ble Prl. Asst.Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

C.C 197/2018A.J.C.J., Ch.Pet.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILKALURIPET.

Present: T. VASUDEVAN,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakluripet.

Friday,the 3 rdday of May, 2019.

Calendar Case. No.340 of 2017

Between:-

State Represented by

The Sub Inspector of Police,

Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. … Complainant.

And

Doarasani Srilatha, W/o. Late Gaddam Raju, aged 50 years, R/o. D. No. 16-8-16, Somuvari street, Old Guntur, Guntur. Now at Sambasiva Nagar.

Chilakaluripet Town. ... Accused.

This case is coming on 01-05-2019 for disposal before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri A. Pavan Kumar, and Sri. M. Naga Babu, M. Prasanna Advocates, for the accused and upon hearing both sides, and on perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, and this court delivered the following:-

J U D G E M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban Police Station , submitted Report against the accused in Crime Number 94 of 2017, for the offence punishable Under Section 509 & 506 of I.P.C.

2.PROSECUTION CASE

The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:

Victim/P.W.1/Y. Julie Rani is a conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet

Depot and resident of CR. Colony, Chilakaluripet. Accused/D. Srilatha is also an employee as Superintendent, Traffic Inspector in A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet

Depot and both are working in A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet Depot. While so, accused used to behave adamantly with the lady conductor in several ways,

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET thereby, used to harass them. On 16.04.2017 around 4.30 p.m., victim/P.W.1 submitted her leave application through P.W.2/M. Venkata Subbareddy, Asst.

Depot Clerk at A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet Depot by seeking two days leave on 16 and 17 of April, 2017 because of her monthly problem (menses). L.W.2 by receiving leave application of P.W.1 initialed upon it by noting the time and date of receiving that letter, entered the leave details in the menses leave, register, later on, handed over that application to L.W.3/R. Sai Ram. P.W.1 availed leave on 16th and 17th April, 2017, joined her duties but, suprisingly on 24.04.2017 she received memo/charge sheet bearing No.P1/1(37)2017-CPT containing allegations of unauthorized absence of duties on 16th and 17th April, 2017 without any prior intimation in obtaining leave or permission. On 02.05.2017 L.W.1 submitted her explanation and by considering the same action was dropped by giving “censure” on 01.06.2017. while so, on 06.05.2017, P.W.1 by working as conductor to a bus for Guntur as an ordinary service, after completing duties relieved and approached cash counter at A.P.S.R.T.C, bus stand to handed over collection. By the time, accused found L.W.1, and abused L.W.1, then L.W.1 noticing the same went to accused questioned the accused that why she unnecessarily troubling her by sending unfair absent report. Accused warned

L.W.1 that she, should obey the order it any of accused if not the result would be like this and the accused, shall personally examine lady conductor who applied for menses leave in order to grant that leave or else no sanction. By saying like so, accused defamed L.W.1 in the presence of L.W.3/O. Sambrajyam, L.W.4/R. Sri

Ram, L.W.5/V. Venkateswarlu and L.W.6/U. China Subbarao and insulted L.W.1, as well as, threatened her in dire consequences, therefore, L.W.1 approached

Chilakaluripet Urban Police Station around 9.00 p.m., on 08.05.2017 and reported this court against the accused.

L.W.7/M. Uma Maheswara Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of

Chilakaluripet Urban P.S received report from L.W.1/victim, registered it as F.I.R in Cr. No. 94/2017 for the offences punishable U/sec. 509 & 506 of I.P.C, took up the investigation.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

During the investigation he secured and examined above named witnessed L.Ws.1 to 6, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, drawn Rough Sketch. As the offences alleged are being punishable with imprisonment for a term less than 7 years, L.W.7/S.I by serving notice upon the accused, secured her, examined her and directed her to appear before this court as and when summoned and later by completing investigation submitted final report for the offence punishable U/sec. 509 & 506 of I.P.C.

3. COGNIZANCE

After careful perusal of material on record and Police report the cognizance of the offence was taken for the offences Under Section 506 & 509 of I.P.C. against accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED BEFORE TRIAL

This Court examined the accused under section 239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed for the offences punishable under section 506 & 509 of

I.P.C. against accused and read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

During the trial, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 by exhibiting

Exs.P1 to P8 documents. Among the witnesses, P.W.1/Y. Julie Rani is the victim,

P.Ws.2 to 6 namely O. Sambrajyam, R. Sairam, V. Venkateswarlu, U. China

Subbarao and M. Venkata Subbareddy are witnesses to the offence reported and

P.W.7/M. Uma Maheswara Rao, S.I, was the investigation officer who investigated the offence. Among the documents relied, Ex.P1 report of P.W.1 and Ex.P7 F.I.R,

Ex.P.8 Rough Sketch are important documents.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

7.EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED AFTER TRIAL

After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused had been examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence found against her in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, she denied the same and reported no defence on her behalf.

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

9.ARGUMENTS-

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of victim/P.W.1 goes to show the nature of harassment, manner of committing offence of criminal intimidation and also the nature of insult suffered by P.W.1, because of the attitude of accused, therefore, all essential requirements for the offences punishable U/sec. 506 & 509 are successfully placed before the court and sought to consider the same, to convict the accused for the offence charged.

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that in order to prove the guilt of accused for the charged offences, prosecution though examined P.Ws.1 to 7, except, self serving statement of P.W.1 who admittedly found guilt for her personal misconduct or dereliction of duties no other evidence placed to support. The independent witnesses who said to be witnesses to the offence and in whose presence the offence was alleged to be committed are turned hostile. There is no evidence to support the evidence of P.W.1 who admittedly got misunderstandings with the accused. This report was given under

Ex.P1 only to harass the accused to gain control over her, therefore, prayed to consider the cross examination evidence elicited from P.W.1 and sought to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

10.Now the point for determination is:

“ Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt that for the charged offence committed under

sections 506 & 509 of I.P.C” ?

11.POINT:-

In a prosecution alleging an offence against the accused, it is the burden of prosecuting agency to place evidence establishing the facts, circumstances evidencing the offence alleged against the accused. Until and unless this burden has been discharged, it may not be possible to convict the accused. Herein, prosecuting agency/state alleged against the accused that she being superintendent/traffic inspector at A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet Depot on 06.05.2017, 12.30 noon when P.W.1 approached her, grew wild upon her, abused

P.W.1, threatened her and insulted her in the presence of P.Ws.2 to 6, in connection with employment and sanction of menses leave to women employee, more particularly to P.W.1. To support the same and to establish it, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 by exhibiting Exs.P1 to P8 as named above.

12.Evidence of P.W.1/victim/Y. Julie Rani coupled with contents in Ex.P1 report given to P.W.7/S.I are also goes to show that P.W.1 applied for menses leave and availed it on 16th and 17th of April, 2017 and subsequently, accused being superior officer to P.W.1 knowing the application for grant of menses leave, intentionally submitted false report and got issued a charge memo alleging that

P.W.1 unauthorizedly absent and in that connection when P.W.1 questioned the accused on 06.05.2017, accused committed the offence by insulting P.W.1 and by threatening her which was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 6. To support the evidence in chief of P.W.1 and the contents in Ex.P1 report of her, prosecution examined

P.Ws.2 to 7. P.W.2/O. Sambrajyam, P.W.3/R. Sriram, P.W.4/V. Venkateswarlu,

P.W.5/U. China Subbarao and P.W.6/M. Venkata Subbareddy who are employees of

A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet Depot and material witnesses who said to be witnessed the offence goes to show that they deposed nothing against accused

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET by supporting the prosecution. Previous statements of these witnesses under

Exs.P2 to P6 are though contains that they witnessed the offence alleged against the accused, during the trial, all these witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution by deposing that they did not know anything about the case facts, since, they witnessed nothing pertaining to this case. It is clear from these depositions from P.Ws.2 to 6 that these witnesses are no way helpful to found the guilt of accused.

13.Only evidence left over is the evidence of P.W.7/S.I. P.W.7/M. Uma

Maheswara Rao, S.I, though deposed in his evidence in chief that from and out of his investigation by examining witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 and by recording their statements, he collected prima facie material that the contents in report under

Ex.P1 are true, evidence of P.W.7/S.I is nothing but hear say, since, he came to know the allegations through P.Ws.1 to 6. On the other hand, the independent witnesses whose statements are said to be recorded by P.W.7/S.I under Exs.P2 to

P6 portions, did not supported by P.W.7/S.I about his investigation and recording those statements. Hence, it is clear that only evidence available against the accused is the evidence of P.W.1 only.

14.It is settled principle of Law of evidence that the evidence is to be weighted but not counted. If the sole testimony of witnesses inspires confidence by disclosing reliability and trustworthiness, that can be considered to proceed against the accused. As discussed above as there is no other witnesses except

P.W.1 who deposed against the accused, if her evidence inspires the confidence and appears as free from suspicion, it can be relied though it is a sole statement/evidence. Where as, evidence elicited from her, in her cross examination coupled with the absence of documentary evidence in support of prosecution renders the evidence of P.W.1 in her chief examination as suspicion one.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

15.Cause for dispute was the leave application of P.W.1 availing leave on 16.04.2017 and 17.04.2017. This leave application not produced before the court though P.W.7/investigation officer visited the scene of offence by approaching the

A.P.S.R.T.C, Chilakaluripet Depot. Evidence of P.W.1 is that accused gave a charge memo to her calling explanation for unauthorized absence and it was issued on 25.04.2017 with proceedings and the service of that charge memo was a personal service upon P.W.1. That charge memo also not produced before the court. Absence of these material in the form of documents which are material evidence coupled with admissions of P.W.1 in her cross examination that “I

belongs to TNTUC union and I do not know to which union the accused

belongs” and the admissions of the investigation officer/P.W.7/S.I that it is true that P.W.1 statement does not contain information about issuing charge memo to her and he did not examined depot management about dispute, as well as, no documentary evidence collected, evidencing the requisition of P.W.1 are all goes to show that because of dispute between accused and P.W.1 in connection with departmental activities, in order to gain control over the accused who is a leave sanction officer and as the accused belongs to opponent union, as suggested to

P.W.1 by the accused, P.W.1 might have reported this case only to gain control over accused, therefore, subsequently, all the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 6 are turned hostile realizing the fact and neither P.W.1 nor P.W.7/investigation officer choose to produce the documentary evidence like leave application of P.W.1, charge memo to her and result of departmental enquiry if any. Under these facts, circumstances and evidence discussed, this court is of the view that prosecution failed in proving the guilt of accused that she committed the offence of criminal intimidation and insult the modesty of a women by indecent behavior which are punishable U/secs. 506 & 509 of I.P.C, therefore, this point is answered against the prosecution by concluding that the accused is entitled for acquittal.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

14.RESULT/FINDING

In the result, this court found that accused is not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 506 & 509 of I.P.C, accordingly, this court acquitted her U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused obtained shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, Typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

Chilakaluripet.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

1. P.W.1 Y. Julie Rani (victim)None

2. P.W.2 O. Sambrajyam (witness)

3. P.W.3 R. Sairam, (witness)

4. P.W.4 V. Venkateswarlu,(witness)

5. P.W.5 U. China Subbarao (witness)

6. P.W.6 M. Venkata Subbareddy (witness)

7. P.W.7 M. Uma Maheswara Rao, S.I (investigation officer)

Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution

1. Ex.P.1: Report of witness to the police.

2. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.2

3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.3

4. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.4

5. Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.5

6. Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW.6

7. Ex.P.7: F.I.R

8. Ex.P.8: Rough Sketch

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence

- Nil -

Material Objects marked for

NIL

Sd/- T. Vasudevan

A.J.C.J, CH.PET.

// True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

C.C 340 of 2017A.J.C.J, CH.PET

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

DATE OF

Offence Report of Apprehensi Release CommenceClosure ofSentence or complainanon of on bailment if trial Order taccusedtrial 06.05.2017 08.05.2017 26.09.2017 -25.01.2019 22.04.2019 03.05.2019

Explanation for the delay: This is a case filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S against the accused U/Sec.506 & 509 of IPC. On 24.08.2017 case was taken on file. On 26.09.2017 copies were furnished to the accused. On 14.06.2018 accused was examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and Charge U/s. 506 & 509 of IPC against accused is framed read over and explained to her in Telugu. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence case is posted for trial. On 25.01.2019 PW1examined and Ex.P1 marked. On 13.02.2019 P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.P2 and P3 were marked. On 28.02.2019 P.Ws.4 and 5 were examined and Exs.P4 and P5 were marked. On 15.03.2019 P.W.6 examined and Ex.P6 marked. On 22.04.2019 P.W.7 examined and Exs.P7 and P8 were marked. On the same day Prosecution evidence is closed. As there is no incriminating material existing against the accused on 25.04.2019 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Hence defence evidence was closed. On 01.05.2019 heard arguments on both sides. On 03.05.2019 Judgment

Pronounced Vide Separate Judgment.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.340/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Complainant: State: Sub-Inspectior of Police, Chilakaluripet Urban P.S. (Cr.No.94/2017 of Chilakaluripet Urban P.S.) AccusedDoarasani Srilatha, W/o. Late Gaddam Raju, aged 50 years, R/o. D. No. 16-8-16, Somuvari street, Old Guntur, Guntur. Now at Sambasiva Nagar. Chilakaluripet Town.

Offence : U/Sec. 506 & 509 of IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or order : In the result, this court found that accused is not guilty for the charge punishable Under Section 506 & 509 of I.P.C. and accordingly, this court acquitted her U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused obtained shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment.

Sd/- T. Vasudevan

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to:

1. The Hon’ble Prl.Asst.Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True copy //

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

Present: T. VASU DEVAN,

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet

Tuesday, this the 30th day of April, 2019.

C.C.No.37 of 2019

BETWEEN:

The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Chilakaluripet …Complainant

And

Bitra Venkata Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 48 yrs, R/o D.No. 2-38, Rajapet village,

Chilakaluripet Mandal. ... Accused

This case is coming on 23-04-2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor A. Pavan Kumar, for the State and Sri D. Chitti Babu, learned counsel for accused and upon perusal of the entire material on record, on hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.PROSECUTION CASE :

By submitting Police report in Cr.No.35 of 2018 for the offence punishable U/sec.34-A of AP Excise Act, The Station House Officer of Prohibition and Excise, Chilakaluripet alleged that the accused being resident of Rajapet village of Chilakaluripet Mandal in the habit of dealing with liquor illegally, while so, on 05.11.2018, LW.s.1 to LW.3 B. Veeranjaneyulu

Constable, Sk. Basha Constable, B. Latha, Inspector, are making routine rounds to detect the excise offences, found the accused at Left side Bridge on

Pothavaram to Rajapet road of Rajapet Village of Chilakaluripet Mandal, in suspicious circumstances, immediately, L.Ws. 1 to 3 surrounded him and enquired with him and found that he possessed 12 bottles of HD Heavens Door

Whisky L.W.3 asked the accused to submit his authority to posses the same, but he failed to disclose any authority, hence she seized 12 bottles of HD Heavens

Door Whisky liquor bottles from the possession of accused by preparing police proceedings shifted the seized material and accused to Excise and Prohibition police station, Chilakaluripet.

Subsequently, L.W.3/B. Latha, Inspector registered contents of police proceedings as F.I.R in crime No.35/2018 for the offence U/sec.34(A) of AP

Excise Act and took up the investigation, produced the accused for judicial custody. Lifted the sample bottles were sent to laboratory for chemical analysis.

Later L.W.3/B. Latha, Inspector received laboratory report and L.W.3 B. Latha,

Inspector submitted final report.

2. COGNIZANCE.

After careful perusal of material on record and charge sheet the Cognizance of the offence Punishable Under Section 34-A of AP Excise Act was takenagainst the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused, relevant copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED BEFORE TRAIL

Examined The accused Under Section 239 Cr.P.C., charge framed and explained to accused which are Punishable Under Section 34-A of

AP Excise Act, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.PROSECUTION EVIDENCE

During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 & 2 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P3 and M.O.1 & HD Heavens Door liquor bottle is exhibited.

6. EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED AFTER TRIAL

After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused had been examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating evidence found against the accused in the evidence adduced by the prosecution for which the accused denied the evidence and reported no defence.

7.Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused for the charge Under Section 34-A of AP Excise Act” ?

9. POINT:-

Before appreciating the evidence brought on record by

prosecution, it is necessary to go through section 42 of the AP Excise Act, 1968 which deals with presumption as to the commission of the offence in certain cases.

“Sec.42 : Presumption as to commission of offence in certain

cases:- In prosecutions U/s.34, [Sec.37 and 37-A], it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under that section in respect of -

(a) any intoxicant, or

(b) any still utensil, implement or apparatus whatsoever in the manufacture of any intoxicant other than toddy, or

(c) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of an for the possession of which he is unable to account satisfactorily”.

To avail the said presumption, it is initially for the prosecution to establish that the accused was in possession of liquor bottles at the time and place. To prove the same, the prosecution has examined PW.1 & 2 among the witnesses P.W.1/Sk. Basha Constable, is the person who associated with P.W.2 and

P.W.2/B. Latha is the Inspector who did investigation. Prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence under Ex.P1 Special report, Ex.P2 FIR & Ex.P3

Public analyst report.

10. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2 Police officers, it discloses that on 05.11.2018, L.W.1/B. Veeranjaneyulu, constable, P.W.1/Sk. Basha

Constable & PW.2/B. Latha, Inspector, are making routine rounds to detect the excise offences, found the accused in suspicious circumstances, at Left side

Bridge on Pothavaram to Rajapet road of Rajapet Village of Chilakaluripet

Mandal, immediately, P.Ws.1 & 2 surrounded him and enquired with him and found that he possessed 14 bottles of HD Heavens Door Whisky, P.W.2 asked the accused to submit his authority to posses the same, but he failed to disclose any authority, hence he seized 14 liquor bottles of HD Heavens Door Whisky from the possession of accused by preparing Special Report under Ex.P1 by lifting, sample under M.O.1 and shifted the seized material and accused to Excise and

Prohibition police station, Chilakaluripet.

11.It is settled to be principal of Law as ruled by Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature in between Sukavasi Sivaiah Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2009 (2) ALD (criminal) 148 ruled that “if the evidence of police officials wholly

reliable, consistent and trust worthy, free from suspicion, the evidence of

such police can be considered on par with evidence of any other

witnesses and it is not necessary to throw out such a witness evidence.”

The condition put by the Hon’ble High Court in above referred judgment to considered the evidence of Police officials is that such evidence is to be reliable, consistent, trust worthy and free from suspicion. Herein to support the oral evidence of P.W.1 and 2 who are police officials and to show their evidence is reliable, consistent, trust worthy and free from suspicion, There is no other witnesses available since no independent witnesses were secured in compliance of Sec.100 of Cr.P.C while making the seizure of M.O.1 sample liquor bottle.

Under these circumstances, it is clear that only evidence is available against the accused that he committed offence is the evidence of P.W.1 and 2/police officials whose evidence is not appears to be reliable and trust worthy.

12. Admittedly the scene of offence is at Left side Bridge on Pothavaram to

Rajapet road of Rajapet Village of Chilakaluripet Mandal, limits and the time of detecting the offence is on 05.11.2018. Sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C., mandates the procedure to be followed by the investigation at the time of making seizure of any property in connection with a crime. Provisions under AP Excise Act in Sec 59 also mandates that following Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C., is mandatory. P.W.2 herein being Inspector had much knowledge about it. However evidence elicited from

P.W.1 made it clear that P.W.1 failed to follow above mandatory provisions of Law and it renders the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 with regard to the seizure of case property as suspicious one. P.W.1/Sk. Basha, Constable, admitted that “ My

Inspector LW3 B.Latha not tried to secure revenue officials,

Chilakaluripet. Rajapet village is a residential locality. The report /Ex.P1

does not contain names of person with whom I approached to secure as

witnesses. No written summon issued to me for securing mediators. No

cash and other incriminating material seized from the accused. No rough

sketch of the scene was prepared. The liquor bottles like M.O 1 will be

available in open market. The shops from which liquor had been

purchased were not mentioned in the report Ex.P1. Statements of us were

not recorded by my Inspector. M.O.1 does not contain my signature. ”

P.W.2/B. Latha being Inspector deposed as admitted by P.W.1 as noted above and further deposed that “ I am not tried to secure revenue officials,

Chilakaluripet. Rajapet village is a residential locality. The report /Ex.P1

does not contain names of person with whom I approached to secure as

witnesses. No written summon issued to me for securing mediators. I did

not inquired from which wine shops accused secured the liquor. No cash

and other incriminating material seized from the accused. No rough

sketch of the scene was prepared. The liquor bottles like M.O 1 will be

available in open market. The shops from which liquor had been

purchased were not mentioned in the report Ex.P1. The analyst who

analyze the sample belongs to our department. Ex.P1 does not contain

that the contents are read over to the accused. Myself the informant and

investigation officer in this case. The polythene bag was not produced

before this Hon'ble court. ” In similar circumstances case,Hon’ble High Court

of Judicature in between Eduru Srinivaslu Reddy Vs. State of AP , reported in 2002 (1) ALD (criminal) 347 ruled that “if no mediators are secured are

examined though the scene of offence is a busy locality, the search and

seizure will creates a suspicion and conviction based upon such evidence

cannot be sustained.”In obedience to this ruling and the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 as discussed about with regard to failure in taking steps to comply sec.100 (4) of Cr.P.C., renders evidence of P.W.1 and 2 as suspicious one and not trust worthy.

13.Further, Hon’ble High Court of Judicature in between Karola Chennai and others Vs. State of AP, reported in 2014 (2) ALD (criminal) 641 ruled that “there is no quantum of minimum numbers of witnesses fixed to be

examined on behalf of prosecution, therefore solitary testimony can be

relied and accepted if it is free from all reasonable doubts and trust

worthy. But if the witnesses is the complainant cum investigation officer,

is naturally interested in getting conviction therefore he cannot be

treated as independent witness. Conviction based on sole evidence of

investigation officer in excise offences is not good”. In obedience to this ruling it is clear that sole evidence of police who registered the crime and investigated into may not sufficient to record conviction by coming to a conclusion that the accused is guilty. Herein P.W.2 being Inspector of Prohibition and Excise and P.W.2 being Inspector in the same department are naturally considered as interested witnesses, which, alone cannot be basis for conviction in the absence of corroboration.

14.In view of above discussion and evidence available on record, this court is of the view that though a presumption is available in favour of prosecution by shifting the onus of proof upon the accused to prove contra as required U/sec.42 of AP Excise Act, this presumption would be available to the prosecution only upon establishing or proving the possession of liquor bottles. Unless the possession of prohibited property is proved, the presumption U/sec.42 of the Act will not applies. Herein, prosecution in spite of examine P.W.1 and 2 failed to establish the possession of liquor bottles by accused at Left side Bridge on

Pothavaram to Rajapet road of Rajapet Village of Chilakaluripet Mandal, limits therefore, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence under Section 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act beyond the reasonable doubt as required under the Law. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

15. In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for the charge U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, therefore this court acquitted the accused

U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 sample liquor bottles liquor 180 ml bottles shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to the dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this 30th day of April, 2019.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1:Sk. Basha Constable PW2 : B. Latha, Inspector

For Defence: Nil

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1:Special Report Ex.P2:FIR Ex.P3:Analyst Report

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS

For Prosecution:

M.O.1:HD Heavens Door Whisky Sample liquor bottles

AJCJ., CH.PET.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT: GUNTUR

Calendar of cases tried by Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet.

OffenceFilingArrestedReleasedCommenClosureResult theon bailcementof trial accusedof trial 1234567 05.11.1805.11.1805.11.1808.11.1822.04.1922.04.1930.04.19

Explanation for the delay: On 17.04.19 case was taken on file. Copies furnished on 17.04.19. Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C on 17.04.19. During the course of trial, on 22.04.19 P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P3 & M.O.1 were marked. On the same day prosecution evidence closed. On 23.04.19, the accused examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf, arguments heard both sides and Judgment pronounced on 30.04.2019 Vide Separate Judgment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.No.37/2019ON THE FILE OF ADDL.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHILAKALURIPET.

The Proh. & Excise Inspector, Proh. & Excise Station, Chilakaluripet … Complainant

And

Bitra Venkata Rao, S/o Narayana, aged 48 yrs, R/o D.No. 2-38, Rajapet village,

Chilakaluripet Mandal. .... Accused

Offence: U/Sec. 34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act

Finding: Not Guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, this court found that the accused is not guilty for the charge U/s.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act, therefore this court acquitted the accused U/s.248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months from the date of this judgment. M.O.1 sample liquor bottles liquor 180 ml bottle shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHILAKALURIPET.

Copy to: 1.The Hon’ble Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur. 2.The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural, Guntur.