Kum. V.Divya

C.C. No.265 of 2015 1 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

Present : - Kum. V. Divya,

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Friday, this the 9th day of April, 2021

C.C.No. 265 of 2015

BETWEEN:

State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Pithapuram Rural Police Station. ... Complainant

AND

Mangipudi Siva Gayathri Phani Kumar, S/o.Sivarama Sastry, 36 Years, C/Brahmin, Working as Insurance Advisor, D.No.22-5-10, Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry, Driver of Maruthi Swift VDI-BSIII Car bearing regd. No.AP05BL2278. … Accused

This case is coming on 06-04-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri A.Srinivaskalyan, Advocate for accused, upon hearing them, as the matter have stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station has laid charge sheet against accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.30/2015 of

Pithapuram Rural Police Station.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that about six years ago deceased-Chitturi

Ramana along with his wife i.e., LW3-Chitturi Ganga went to Anaparthi to their daughters house and residing there by running a pan shop. On 14.03.2015 at about 9.00AM., deceased went to

Uppada Kothapalli to his sister’s house on his TVSXL moped bearing registered No.AP 05 CC 1942 and while returning at about 3.00PM., when he reached the outskirts of Jalluru village one

Maruthi Swift car bearing No.AP 05 BL 2278 which was coming in the opposite direction dashed his TVS XL moped and in the result deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the report of LW1, a case in Cr.No.30/2015 was registered for the offence under

C.C. No.265 of 2015 2 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram

section 304-A IPC. During course of investigation, LW14 arrested the accused on 16.03.2015 when he surrendered and released him on obtaining sureties and after completion of investigation, charge sheet filed for the offence under section 304-A of IPC against accused.

3.The case is taken on file against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The substance of accusation against accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

6.During the trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs. P.1 to P.5 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, as no incriminating evidence was available against accused, section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure examination was dispensed with.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the

offence under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.Prosecution to establish its case examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P5 in support of their contention. PW1 who is the relative of deceased has categorically stated that in the year 2015 on one day at about 3.00PM., they came to know that deceased met with an accident when one car dashed his motorcycle and died near Jalluru and on knowing the same he himself along with other witnesses went there and found the deceased succumbed to injuries and also found a swift car and motorcycle of the deceased at the scene of offence and then he filed

Ex.P1 report.

11.Pws.2 and 3 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and when they were questioned about section 161 Cr.P.C statement they denied the statements and so their

C.C. No.265 of 2015 3 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram

statements were marked by the prosecution as Exs.P2 and P3.

12.VRO, Mallam was examined as PW4. PW4 categorically stated that on receiving phone call from Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural Police Station intimating about an accident near Jalluru, he accompanied LW9-K.V.Satya Prasad, LW10-K.V.V.Satyanarayna,

LW11-P.Nookaraju and went to the scene of offence situated at irrigation canal bund of

Nandipati Venkata Rao adjoining tar road near Jalluru and there they found dead body lying on the Irrigation canal road and one swift car and TVS 50 motorcycle and to that effect he drafted

Ex.P4 scene observation report and later they went to Government Hospital, Pithapuram and there in his presence inquest conducted over the deceased and they came to the opinion that the cause of death is due to that accident and to effect he drafted Ex.P5 inquest report.

13.PW4 in his cross examination admitted that there is a correction with regard to the dates under the signatures of Sub-Inspector and two signatures of LW9 and it appears as if the date is altered from 23.03.2015 and he also admitted that last para in Ex.P4 disclose that it was written on 23.03.2014 and LW9 is scribe. He also admitted that Ex.P5 discloses date as 15.03.2015.

14.Owner of the crime vehicle was examined as PW5. PW5 in his evidence deposed that accused is his friend and on 14.03.2015 at about 12.00 or 12.30PM., accused and his friend

Sappa Satyendra came to him and asked to give his maruti swift car bearing No.AP05 BL 2278 to them as they have to go to Uppada to purchase fishes. Accordingly, he gave his car to them and at about 3.00 or 3.30 PM., he received a phone call from accused stating that constable asked to call him and the constable informed that his car is involved in an accident and so he went to Pithapuram Rural Police Station and there police obtained his signature after noting his details and the details of his car. In his cross examination, he admitted that he came to know the information about the accident only through police and has no personal knowledge about it.

15.Ex.P1 report clearly shows that LW1 received a phone call stating that on 14.03.2015 at 03.00PM deceased met with an accident when one swift VDI silver colour car bearing No.AP 05 BL 2278 dashed TVS XL vehicle bearing No.AP 05 CC 1942 rashly and negligently without blowing horn and in the result deceased died on the spot. Exs.P2 and Ex.P3

C.C. No.265 of 2015 4 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram

are section 161 Cr.P.C statements of Pws.2 and 3. No evidenciary value can be given to them as the witnesses denied the contents of those statements. Ex.P4 scene observation report clearly shows that scene of offence is situated at the outskirts of Jalluru village and at the scene of offence they found dead body of deceased, TVS 50 XL motorcycle bearing No.AP 05 CC 1942 and silver colour swift car bearing No. AP 05 BL 2278 Ex.P5 inquest report clearly shows that on conducting inquest they opined that the cause of death is due to accident.

16.Learned APP argued that material witnesses has turned hostile and so prosecution could not establish the offence alleged against the accused. On the other hand, learned counsel for defence argued that there is no evidence on record to establish the offence alleged against the accused and hence accused may be granted benefit of doubt.

17.Considering the evidence adduced and arguments putforth this court is of the following view:

1. There is no evidence on record to establish that accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of offence as there is no direct witnesses and the evidence of PW5 raises suspicion as to whether accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of offence as he deposed that along with accused, his friend Sappa Satyendra accompanied him while taking the car and thereby unless and until it was established that accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of offence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

2. In order to prove the offence under section 304-A IPC, burden of proof is heavily upon the prosecution to establish rash and negligent act on part of accused. Prosecution in this case failed to establish the same as no direct witnesses were available to prove said fact.

18.Even though prosecution succeeded to establish that cause of death of deceased is due to accident by examining PW4 and by marking Ex.P5, it itself is not sufficient to establish the guilt of accused. In light of facts and circumstances discussed above this court is of the opinion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, it is a fit case to grant benefit to the accused.

19.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 255 (1)

C.C. No.265 of 2015 5 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram

of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, and thereafter, shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open

court, this the 9 th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

P.W.1: 24-01-2020: Chitturi Gangadhar P.W.2: 14-02-2020: Nandipati Venkata Ramana P.W.3: 14-02-2020: Masakapalli Lazar P.W.4: 06-03-2020: Chittarapu Nookalu P.W.5: 22-03-2021: Ponnada Ashok Kumar

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--- NIL ---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P.3: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P.4: Scene observation report. Ex.P.5: Inquest report.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Pithapuram.

C.C. No.265 of 2015 6 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram

JUDGMENT

C.C. No. 265 of 2 015

Dt. 09-04-2021

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari

Calendar of cases tried by Kum.V.Divya, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate Of

First Class, Pithapuram

Date of Offence: 14.03.2015 Date of Report or Complaint: 14.03.2015 Date of Apprehension of accused : 16.03.2015 Date of Release on bail: 16.03.2015 Date of Commencement of trial: 24.01.2020 Date on which trial closed: 06.04.2021 Date of sentence of Order: 09.04.2021 Explanation of delay and remarks: Prosecution did not produce the witnesses

Calendar and case No. : C.C.No.265/2015

Name and address of the complainant : The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pithapuram Rural P.S.

Name of the accused:

Mangipudi Siva Gayathri Phani Kumar, S/o.Sivarama Sastry, 36 Years, C/Brahmin, Working as Insurance Advisor, D.No.22-5-10, Veerabhadrapuram, Rajahmundry, Driver of Maruthi Swift VDI-BSIII Car bearing regd. No.AP05BL2278.

Section of law: : Under secs. 304-A IPC Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC Sentence : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offence under section 255 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A of Criminal Procedure Code, and thereafter, shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Pithapuram.

Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

Page No.1

C.C. No.286 of 2014 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

Present Kum.V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Friday, the 16th day of April, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO. 286/2014

Between:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu Police Station. …Complainant

And:

Koppisetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Bairava Swamy, 38 years, C/Settibalija, Tallarevu village, East Godavari District. Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 1069. … Accused

This case has come finally for hearing on 15-04-2021 before me in the presence of

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and Sri K.Apparao, Advocate for accused, as the matter stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following : -

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused stood charged for the trial of offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Crime No.12/2014 of Gollaprolu Police station.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 14.01.2014 at about 7.15AM., deceased-Vemagiri Subrahmanyam started from his house on his Hero Honda CBZ Extreme

Motorcycle bearing No.CG 07 AD 9508 to go to Pithapuram, on the way at about 7.30 AM., when he reached near Nookalamma Temple, Suryudu water tank, on NH 216 road, Gollaprolu village and stopped his motorcycle in the left side road margin as a cow came across the road in his front, in the meantime accused drove his lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 1069 in rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding from Kathipudi to Pithapuram side and hit the rear side of the motorcycle of deceased as a result of which the deceased fell on the tar road and sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot. During the course of investigation, accused voluntarily surrendered before LW12-SHO and he arrested the accused and produced before court for judicial custody and he was released on bail on

Page No.2

C.C. No.286 of 2014 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

obtaining sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation, accused is charge sheeted for the offences under section 304-A of IPC.

3.This case was taken on file under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr. P. C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The substance of accusation against accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal

Code is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available on record. The plea of accused is one of total denial. When the accused was called to enter upon defence evidence, accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents was marked on behalf of the defence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Prosecution to establish its case examined Pws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P7.

10.PW1 deposed that in the year 2014 on the date of Bhogi festival his son i.e., deceased-Vemagiri Subrahmanyam @ Dorababu went to Kakinada hospital on motorcycle at 7.15AM., and later he came to know that deceased met with an accident caused by a lorry at 7.30AM., near Nookalamma temple, Gollaprolu when the lorry was driven at high speed in rash and negligent manner and accordingly he gave Ex.P1 report.

Page No.3

C.C. No.286 of 2014 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

11.PW2 in his evidence deposed that in the year 2014 on the date of Bhogi festival at about 7.30AM., when he went to his shop he found deceased met with an accident and then he informed it to the father of deceased i.e., PW1 and later he came to know that one lorry dashed the motorcycle of deceased from back side as a cow came suddenly into the road and that accident was caused due to rash and negligence of lorry driver and in the said accident deceased sustained injuries to his head and succumbed to injuries.

12.PW3 in his evidence deposed that on 14.01.2014 at 9.00AM., at the request of

Sub-Inspector of Police he went to scene of offence situated at NH 216 road near

Nookalamma Talli temple, near Suryudu Cheruvu at Gollaprolu and there found one lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 1069 and one dead body behind the back tyres of said lorry and adjacent to said lorry there is a red colour motorcycle and to that effect he prepared Ex.P2 scene observation report and thereafter police conducted inquest over the dead body in his presence and they opined that the cause of death is due to accident and to that effect he prepared Ex.P3 inquest report. PW3 in his cross examination admitted that there are some corrections in Ex.P2.

13.Learned APP argued that witnesses were gained over and so they did not support the case of prosecution. On the other hand, learned counsel for defence argued that there is no piece of evidence on record to make accused guilty of the offence and therefore accused may be granted benefit of doubt.

14.It is undisputed that prosecution by its evidence could establish that cause of death of deceased is due to accident caused by a lorry when a cow came on road and due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver but there is no evidence on record to show that accused is the lorry driver at the time of commission of offence which is the primary requisite to prove the guilt of accused. It is settled legal position that unless guilt of accused is established beyond all reasonable doubts, accused cannot be found guilty of commission of the offence. Hence, this is a fit case for granting benefit of doubt to the accused.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of

IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail

Page No.4

C.C. No.286 of 2014 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 16 th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

P.W.1: 28.02.2020: Vemagiri Venkanna P.W.2: 28.02.2020: Taticharla Madhu Babu P.W.3: 06.03.2020: Kakaraparti Mangathayaru

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--- NIL ---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: PW1 report. Ex.P.2: Scene observation report. Ex.P.3: Inquest report. Ex.P.4: FIR. Ex.P.5: Postmortem report. Ex.P.6: MVI report. Ex.P.7: Rough sketch.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--- NIL ---

MATERIAL OBJECTS

--- NIL ---

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Pithapuram.

Page No.5

C.C. No.286 of 2014 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

JUDGMENT

C.C. No. 286 of 2 014

Dt. 16-04-2021

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by Kum.V.Divya, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate

Of First Class, Pithapuram.

Date of Offence: 14-01-2014

Date of Report or Complaint: 14-01-2014

Date of Apprehension of accused : 20-01-2014

Date of Release on bail: 20-01-2014

Date of Commencement of trial: 28-02-2020

Date on which trial closed: 15-04-2021

Date of sentence of Order: 16-04-2021

Explanation of delay and remarks: Prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and case No. : C.C.No. 286/2014

Name and address of the complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gollaprolu Police Station. Name of the accused:

Koppisetti Srinivasa Rao, S/o.Bairava Swamy, 38 years, C/Settibalija, Tallarevu village, E.G.Dist. Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TV 1069.

Section of law: : Under Section 304-A of IPC Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 304-A of IPC

Sentence : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram. Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

Page No.1

C.C. No.281 of 2015 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PITHAPURAM.

Present Kum.V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Friday, the 16th day of April, 2021

CALENDER CASE NO. 281/2015

Between: Sub-Inspector of Police, Gollaprolu Police Station. …Complainant

And:

Pothuru Venkateswarlu, S/o.Lakshmana Rao, 49 years, C/ST (Konda Reddy), Sarabhavaram village, Rajavommangi Mandal. Owner cum rider of TVS JIVE motorcycle bearing No.AP 05 BV 6671. … Accused

This case has come finally for hearing on 12-04-2021 before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant-State and Sri Pilli Balaramudu, Advocate

for accused, as the matter stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the

following : -

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused stood charged for the trial of offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Crime No.38/2015 of Gollaprolu Police station.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 15.03.2015 at about 6.00PM., when LW1-Peketi Ramudu and deceased-Somarowthu China Veeraswamy as pillion rider were crossing NH 216 road in Chebrolu village with bicycle from left to right i.e., from Peda

Ramalayam side to Market street, accused drove his TVS Jive motorcycle bearing No.AP 05

BV 6671 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding from Gollaprolu to

Kathipudi side and dashed the bicycle of LW1 and in the result LW1 sustained injuries and deceased sustained severe injury on his head and went to unconscious state. Accused shifted them to Government Hospital, Pithapuram and from there they were referred to GGH,

Kakinada for expert treatment. Basing on the report filed by LW1, case in Cr.No.38/2015 was registered for the offence under sections 338 and 337 IPC. Later deceased succumbed to injuries on 15.03.2015 at about 10.30PM and on receipt of death intimation of deceased,

LW17 ASI re-registered the case and altered the offence from 338, 337 IPC to 304-A, 337

Page No.2

C.C. No.281 of 2015 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

IPC. During the course of investigation LW18 SI of Police arrested the accused on 19.03.2015 and released him on obtaining sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation, accused is charge sheeted for the offences under sections 304-A and 337 of IPC.

3.This case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of

Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr. P. C.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The substance of accusation against accused for the offence under sections 304-A and 337 of

Indian Penal Code is read over and explained to accused in Telugu. Having heard and understanding the same, accused denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

Hence, the case proceeded for trial.

6.On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available on record. The plea of accused is one of total denial. When the accused was called to enter upon defence evidence, accused did not choose to examine any defence witnesses and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the offence under sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.Prosecution to establish its case examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to

P7. Pws.1 to 4 and 7 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and therefore learned APP got marked their section 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P1 to P5 respectively.

10.Prosecution failed to examine LW1 who is the victim and direct witness to the offence and filed a VRO report stating htat his whereabouts are not known. Even though other witnesses were examined by prosecution, they turned hostile and did not support the

Page No.3

C.C. No.281 of 2015 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

prosecution case. Prosecution by virtue of evidence of Pws.1 to 7 succeeded to establish the fact that cause of death of deceased is due to an accident. Apart from that no useful evidence was established to putforth that accused caused said accident. Even though Exs.P1 to P5 were marked, they were not proved as the witnesses denied their contents and so no evidenciary value can be given to them.

11.Learned APP argued that witnesses were gained over and so they did not support the case of prosecution. On the other hand, learned counsel for defence argued that there is no piece of evidence on record to make accused guilty of the offence and therefore accused may be granted benefit of doubt. Considering the evidence available and the arguments putforth, this court is of the opinion that prosecution failed to establish rash and negligent act which is prerequisite for an offence under section 304-A IPC and also failed to establish that accused is the driver of crime vehicle and that crime vehicle is involved in this offence. Therefore, unless it is established beyond all reasonable doubts, accused cannot be found guilty of commission of this offence. Hence, this is a fit case for granting benefit of doubt to the accused.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in

open court, this the 16 th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

P.W.1: 06-04-2021: Dhanakonda Siphayi P.W.2: 06-04-2021: Mamidi Sreenu P.W.3: 06-04-2021: Kadha Suribabu P.W.4: 06-04-2021: Cheppula Nageswara Rao P.W.5: 06-04-2021: Somarowthu Ganga P.W.6: 06-04-2021: Somarowthu Veera Lovadora P.W.7: 12-04-2021: Nellipudi Anantha Govinda Narayana

Page No.4

C.C. No.281 of 2015 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--- NIL ---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P.2: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P.3: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P.4: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P.5: Marked portion of section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

--- NIL ---

MATERIAL OBJECTS

--- NIL ---

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Pithapuram.

Page No.5

C.C. No.281 of 2015 AJMFC Court, Pithapuram.

JUDGMENT

C.C. No. 281 of 2 015

Dt. 16-04-2021

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by Kum.V.Divya, Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial Magistrate

Of First Class, Pithapuram.

Date of Offence: 15-03-2015

Date of Report or Complaint: 15-03-2015

Date of Apprehension of accused : 19-03-2015

Date of Release on bail: 19-03-2015

Date of Commencement of trial: 06-04-2021

Date on which trial closed: 12-04-2021

Date of sentence of Order: 16-04-2021

Explanation of delay and remarks: Prosecution did not produce the witnesses.

Calendar and case No. : C.C.No. 281/2015

Name and address of the complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police,

Gollaprolu Police Station. Name of the accused:

Pothuru Venkateswarulu, S/o.Lakshmana Rao, 49 years, C/ST (Konda Reddy), Sarabhavaram village, Rajavommangi Mandal. Owner cum rider of TVS JIVE motorcycle bearing No.AP 05 BV 6671.

Section of law: : Under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC

Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Secs. 304-A & 337 of IPC

Sentence : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for further period of six months from the date of judgment as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C and thereafter shall stand cancelled.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Pithapuram. Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

O.S.No.144/2020 1 A.J.C.J.Court, Pithapuram

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: PITHAPURAM

PRESENT: - Kum.V.Divya

Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pithapuram

Thursday, the 8th day of April, 2021

O.S.No.144/2020

Between: -

Javvadi Naga Satya Gangadhara Rao @ Nagababu, S/o.Venkatarao, age 44 years, Business, R/o.Viravada, Pithapuram Mandal, Pithapuram JCJC Limits. … Plaintiff

And

Kasipu Srinu, S/o.Ramulu, age 46 years, Business, Hindu, R/o.Narasingapuram, Pithapuram Mandal, Pithapuram JCJC Limits. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 22-03-2021 in the presence of Sri A.Raja Gopal, Advocate for Plaintiff and defendant being set exparte, upon hearing and perusing the material available on record, as the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by plaintiff seeking to pass a decree in his favour for the suit amount of Rs.40,800/- with subsequent interest and for costs and such other reliefs as the Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.Brief facts of the plaint are that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000/- from plaintiff on 02-09-2017 for the purpose of discharging sundry debts agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 12% per annum either to plaintiff or his order on demand and executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Later, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not repay any amount under the suit promissory note, but postponing to repay the same on one pretext or other. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit without giving notice.

3.After service of summons, defendant failed to appear before this Court and no representation on his behalf, written statement not filed and statutory period lapsed. Hence, defendant is set exparte.

4.During the course of trial, Plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 on his behalf.

O.S.No.144/2020 2 A.J.C.J.Court, Pithapuram

5.P.W.1 in his chief affidavit reiterated the same facts as in plaint and got marked

Ex.A.1. P.W.1 by virtue of his oral and documentary evidence established that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.30,000- from plaintiff on 02.09.2017 for the purpose of purchasing site property and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or his order on demand. Later, inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, defendant did not choose to repay the same.

6.In order to disprove the allegations made by plaintiff, though an ample opportunity was given after service of summons, defendant failed to appear before this court and no representation on his behalf, written statement not filed and statutory period lapsed and hence defendant is set exparte. The evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 clearly proved the case of Plaintiff. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount from defendants.

7.In the result, suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.40,800/- in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of suit to the date of decree and with subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.30,000/- from the date of decree to the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 8 th day of April, 2021.

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Pithapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

P.W.1: Javvadi Naga Satya Gangadhara Rao @ Nagababu Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original Promissory note dated 02-09-2017 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.30,000/-.

For Defendant: Nil

Sd/- V.Divya

Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Pithapuram.