Sri. V. Eshwaraiah

1CC 131 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eeshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.131 of 2011 Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pitlam.

..Complainant.

AND

M. Prabhu S/o Lalu, aged 50 years, diver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7846 of Banswada depot, R/o Chaitanya Colony, Banswada

..Accused.

This case came before me on 19-3-2011 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the complainant, and of Sri K. Ramakanth Rao, Counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pitlam, has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.2/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows:

On 4.1.2011 at 1200 hours, the complainant Miryala Chinna

Gangaram (LW.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that on 3.1.2011 at about 3.30 pm while his son Miryala Anil along with one Avati Mogulaiah were proceeding on a Hero Honda CD dawn No.AP-25M-7161 towards Banswada and when they reached in

Gouraram village, meanwhile, RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7846 came in opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver M. Prabhu (accused) and dashed against the 2CC 131 of 2011 motorcycle of his son. Due to which, his son, who was riding the motorcycle, sustained head injury on the right side. Mogulaiah, pillion rider, also sustained injuries to his right knee and also got fractured and also received injury to right side of his head. Hence, he requested the police to take action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, LW.10 T. Srinivas Reddy, SI, registered a case in Cr.No.2 of 2011 under Sec. 338 IPC against the accused and investigated into.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused under Section 338 of IPC on 31-5-2011.

4.On appearance, copies of the documents were furnished to accused as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and when he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 338 of IPC.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

3CC 131 of 2011

8.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused?

9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 3.1.2011 while Pws 3 and 4 were proceeding on a Hero Honda CD dawn No.AP-25M-7161 towards Banswada and when they reached in Gouraram village, meanwhile, on RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7846 came in opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver M. Prabhu (accused). Due to which, Pws 3 and 4 received multiple injuries. In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4. PW1 is the complainant and father of Pw.3, who lodged a petition against the accused. Pw.2 is one of the witnesses to the incident and he is real brother of Pw.1. Pws 3 and 4 are injured persons.

10.The evidence of PW.1 is concerned, it is clear that the Ex.P1 is lodged by himself against the accused about the incident. He deposed in his evidence that from the villagers of Gouraram, he received a telephone call about the accident. Admittedly, he is not the eyewitness.

his evidence is considered to be the person who set the law into motion. Coming to the evidence of PW.2 he is natural brother of PW.1.

He has also deposed the same version. In the cross-examination PW.2 specifically deposed that he came to know the Bus number through

Gouraram villagers. He further deposed that when he reached to the scene of offence, the bus had already left the place. Coming to the evidence of PWs 3 and 4, PW.3 specifically deposed that on 3.1.2011, 4CC 131 of 2011 he was proceeding to Banswada on his motorcycle along with PW.4.

When they reached at outskirts of Gouraram village, meanwhile, one

APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7846 came in opposite direction and dashed to his vehicle. He further deposed that the Bus was with high speed and gave dash to his vehicle. Due to which, he received bleeding injuries on the right side of head and also at eye and also near shoulders. PW.3 further deposed that PW.4 also received right side injuries on leg, teeth and eye. The leg was fractured. PW.3 specifically deposed that accused is the driver, who drove the vehicle and identified in the Court hall also. In the cross-examination, PW.3 stated that in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement he gave such statement that if the Bus driver shown to him, he can identify. The evidence of PW.4 also supporting the same version of PW.3. However, PW.4 deposed that he cannot say the Bus number but he identified the accused in the Court-hall who is present. Coming to the evidence of PW.5, who is panch for scene of offence, he deposed that police conducted panchanama in his presence and Ex.P2 is the CD form with rough sketch and the contents of Ex.P2 were explained to him. Admittedly, the Bus was not present at the time of conducting scene of offence. In the cross-examination of P.W5, he deposed that the distance of 100 meters from the scene of offence to Gouraram bus-stand.

11.It is the contention of the accused that the distance between the

Gouraram bus-stand and the scene of offence is 100 meters. When the bus starts from the bus-stand, Gouraram, there is no question of speed or negligent driving by the accused arises. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused also contended that the residents of all the witnesses is Kurthi village. If really the accident took place 5CC 131 of 2011 in the premises of Gouraram bus-stand, what made the Investigating

Officer to record the statements of Kurthi villagers. It is the further contention of the accused that the injured persons belong to Kurthi village to help their contention all the witnesses were brought from

Kurthi village only. None were examined from the village of Gouraram, in spite of within the vicinity of scene of offence, there are Tea stalls,

Pan shop and other shops are also available including public movement.

12.Coming to the Medical Officer evidence, he deposed that on 3.1.2011, he examined PW.3 and PW.4 and issued Ex.P3 and P4,

Wound certificates of PWs.3 and 4. The Ex.P4 shows that the injuries are grievous in nature and a fracture of supra condylar and Ex.P5 is

X-Ray report of Mogulaiah. As per Ex.P3, PW.6 admitted that he did not mention date of treatment. The injured persons have taken the treatment outside hospitals but the same report has not been produced. Coming to the evidence of PW.7, he deposed that at the time of incident, he was in the Kurthi village and he deposed the entire facts of the case but his evidence cannot be taken into consideration as treated him as hearsay evidence.

13. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts.

a) the injury is caused by the rash or negligent act of the accused.

b) the identification of the accused must be done at the relevant point of time and crime vehicle RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z- 7846 which is involved in the commission of offence.

c) due to rash and negligent act, the other person should receive 6CC 131 of 2011 injuries either simple or grievous.

Out of all the above ingredients, the prosecution could succeed in establishing part of its case and not all beyond reasonable doubt of the

Court. The prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PWs.3 and 4 to prove rash and negligence on the part of the accused. But, in the cross-examination of PWs.3 and 4, the distance between scene of offence and the alleged Gouraram bus-stand is about 100 meters. The distance of 100 meters is the Bus will be in the first gear itself. But, in the 1st gear and 2nd gear the speed of Bus will be controlled very easily.

In the cross-examination of witnesses, it is specifically admitted that the road of said area is pit and path-holes. It is the further contention of the accused that due to pit and path-holes PW.3 himself fell down and both persons received injuries taking advantage of it, they foisted this bus in order to claim compensation. On the other hand, all the witnesses in this case belong to Kurthi village. None of Gouraram village witnesses were examined by the prosecution, in spite of very much availability. In the evidence of P.W.8 he admitted in the cross- examination that he recorded the statements of LWs 2 to 4 at the

Gouraram village. But, he mentioned in 161 Cr.P.C. statements in

Kurthi village. It is also admitted in the cross-examination of P.W.8 that the accident took place near the bus-stand of Gouraram.

14.For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 338 of

Indian Penal Code.

7CC 131 of 2011

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under

Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Sri M. Chinna Gangaram -NIL- PW.2: Sri M. Narayana PW.3: Sri M. Anil PW.4: Sri A. Mogulaiah PW.5: Sri Ch. Mahendar Reddy PW.6: Dr. C. Laxminarayana PW.7: Sri G. Kashiram PW.8: Sri T. Srinivas Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Complaint by PW.1. -NIL- Ex.P2 : CD form with rough sketch Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW.3 Ex.P4: Wound certificate of PW.4 Ex.P5: X-Ray film of Mogulaiah Ex.P6: FIR Ex.P7: CT Scan Anil Kumar Ex.P8: X-Ray film of Anil Kumar

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

CC No.131 of 20118

Form No. 73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eeshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.131 of 2011 Between:

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pitlam.

..Complainant.

AND

M. Prabhu S/o Lalu, aged 50 years, diver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-7846 of Banswada depot, R/o Chaitanya Colony, Banswada

..Accused

Offence :Under Sec. 338 IPC Date of occurrence:03/01/11 Date of complaint :04/01/11 Date of apprehension of accused :07/01/11 Date of release on bail:07/01/11 Date of commencement of trial :26/11/2013 Date of closure of trial :12/03/14 Finding:Found not guilty Sentence / Order :Accused is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offencepunishableunder Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Explanation for the delay --

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 26th day of March, 2014

C.C.No. 55 of 2009 Between: Kurma Dastiah S/o Bagaiah, age 35 years, Occ: agriculture, R/o Banjapally village of Nizamsagar Mandal, Nizamabad District.

..Complainant.

AND 1Mohd. Vajeed S/o Md. Liyakath ali, age 30 years, Lambada, R/o Banjapally village of Nizamsagar Mandal, and also H.No.1-4- 3, Banswada village and Mandal.

2Md. Liyaqath Ali S/o Abdul Ali, age 50 years, Occ: agriculture R/o Banjapally village of Nizamsagar Mandal, and also H.No.1-4- 3, Banswada village and Mandal (died).

3Smt. Vadla Vittamma W/o Sudarshanam, age 55 years, Household, R/o 3-123, Banjapally village of Nizamsagar Mandal. (case against this accused is quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Crl. Petition No.5455 of 2009 on 01.12.2011)

..Accused.

This case came before me on 24-3-2011 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the complainant, and of Sri V. Maheshwar, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Originally, the complainant Kurma Dastiah filed a private complaint before this Court on 19.11.2007. This Court forwarded the complaint to the Police Station, Nizamsagar, for investigation and report, after recording the statements of complainant on oath. After completion of the investigation, the Police Nizamsagar filed a final report stating that this case is civil nature. The complainant after receiving notice, he filed a protest petition against the final report of police. On which, this Court took the cognizance for the offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 506 IPC against A1 to A3. During 2CC.55 of 2009 pendency of the case, A2 reportedly died and the case against A3 is quashed by the Hon’ble High Court vide Crl. Petition No.5455 of 2009 on 01.12.2011. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The complainant and accused are residents of Banjapally village of Nizamsagar Mandal and that they are known to each other. It is further alleged that the complainant is having agricultural lands under the shivar of Achampet village, and that the accused No.1 and 2 are having lands in Sy.No.5621/a/p4 extent Ac.0-34 gts., towards his

West and North sides. On 29.11.2006 accused No.1 came to complainant and offered to sell the above said agricultural land for a valid consideration of Rs.11,000/- and the complainant agreed to purchase the land and on the same day, the complainant paid

Rs.1,000/- towards earnest money and agreed to pay the balance amount and get the land registered. A1 stated to the complainant that he is having full rights to dispose off the property and believing his version, the complainant paid the earnest money and accused No.1 received the said amount and executed an agreement of sale. After that, many times the complainant went to accused No.1 and 2 and requested them to receive the balance amount and execute a registered sale deed in his favour but the accused postponing the same on one or the other pretext and the said fact was known to entire villagers including accused No.3. Later, the complainant came to know that the accused No.2 executed a registered sale deed in favour of accused No.3, and accused No.1 attested the said document as a witness. To ascertain the facts, the complainant obtained certified copy of said registered sale deed and on 1.6.2007, the complainant showing the certified copy of said document, asked accused No.1 to 2 as to why they did like that, on that both accused No.1 and 2 threatened the complainant with dire consequences. As such, all the 3CC.55 of 2009 accused cheated him. Hence, prayed this Court to take action against the accused under Secs. 420 and 506 IPC.

2.After appearance of accused No.1, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and when the accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC. Hence charge under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC were framed and read over and explained the charge to the accused in Hindi.

3.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the complainant examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P.1 and P2. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

4.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused No.1 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

5.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

6.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused?

7.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 cheated the complainant by misrepresenting that accused No.1 is owner and possessor of lands in Sy.No.5621/a/p4 extent Ac.0-34 gts., The and 4CC.55 of 2009 complainant entered into an agreement of sale on 29.11.2006 for a valid consideration of Rs.11,000/- and the complainant agreed to purchase the land and on the same day, the complainant paid

Rs.1,000/- towards earnest money and agreed to pay the balance amount and get the land registered. Clandestinely, the accused No.1 sold out the said land to accused No.3 by virtue of Ex.P2. When PW.1 asked as to why the accused No.1 induced and cheated him by selling the land to accused No.3. Later, the PW.1 came to know that the accused No.1 is not the owner of disputed land. In order to prove the prosecution case, it relied upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 is the victim and complainant in this case. PWs.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses to the sale transaction i.e. Ex.P1.

8.The PW.1 categorically deposed that the accused No.2 agreed to sell land in Sy.No.564 to an extent of Ac.0-32 gts., for a sale consideration of Rs.11,000/-. Out of which, Rs.1,000/- was paid as advance. Ex.P1 is the one plain paper executed by A1 in favour of

PW.1. On careful perusal of Ex.P1, the alleged Sy.No.564/A P4.

However, PW.1 mentioned the survey number in Ex.P3 as 562/a/p4.

Admittedly, Ex.P3 is drafted by an advocate. When Ex.P1 relating to

Sy.No.564 and the pleadings of PW.1 in his complaint shown the survey No.562. It is specifically deposed by PW.1 that the scribe of

Ex.P1 was no more. PW.1 several times approached the accused No.1 for getting registration of disputed land after receiving balance sale consideration. Admittedly, the proceedings against accused No.3 was quashed by the Hon’ble High Court. Even in the cross-examination of

PW.1, he admitted that the disputed land lies in Sy.No.564. In spite of cross-examination of PW.1 there are no specific overt acts against accused No.1 with regard to inducement of PW.1 since the inception of transaction. PWs.2 and 3 also supported the case of PW.1 to the 5CC.55 of 2009 extent of execution of Ex.P1. So far as Ex.P2 is concerned, it is a certified copy of sale deed of accused No.3. It is needless to appreciated the oral evidence and documentary evidence of Ex.P2 as it was considered by the Hon’ble High Court and quashed the criminal proceedings against accused No.3. Whereas coming to the contents of

Ex.P3, it is the complaint filed by the PW.1 before the Court wherein the case of the prosecution has not made out in the complaint itself with regard to ingredients of Sec.420 IPC. There is no whisper about the delivery of possession of disputed land. Even if PW.1 is in the physically possession of disputed land, he has every right to protect his possession, ownership etc., by approaching to the Court of law.

9.In order to prove the present case, the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution:

(i) Sec.420 of IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

10.It is settled law that since the inception of sale transaction, the deception must be played by the accused with the PW.1 about selling of disputed land. The PWs.2 and 3 were silent in respect of deception played on P.W.1 by the accused. In the present case, when accused

No.1 offered to sell the disputed land, it is also bounded duty of PW.1

before purchasing, he has to verify the right, title and ownership over

the immovable property. It is pertinent to mention that caveat emptor which means let the buyer be aware. It is clearly indicating that the person who intends to purchase immovable property, he should be very careful before purchasing. It is the contention of PW.1 6CC.55 of 2009 that the accused No.1 is not the owner of disputed land, he offered to sell in spite of knowing that he is not the true owner. In the cross- examination, PW.1 also admitted that the accused No.1 is not the owner of disputed land. Ex.P1 is not a Non-judicial stamp paper. Even if the PW.1 has right to file a suit for specific performance against accused No.1 if really the Ex.P1 is executed in accordance with the law. According to the Registration Act, even the agreement of sale is also a compulsory registerable document. When any document is executed in respect of immovable property more than Rs.100/- value, it should be registered and stamp duty must be paid.

11.The dispute in respect of the land in survey number 562 is mentioned in Ex.P3. The land in survey number mentioned in Ex.P1 is 564, is totally contradicting with each other. It is also against the principles of the Evidence Act. In the evidence of PW.1, he deposed the survey number as 564. It is also settled law that in the absence of pleading, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be considered. The Ex.P1 does not speak about delivery of the possession and also the boundaries of disputed land. It is not possible to identify any immovable property without boundaries. Under those circumstances, this Court unable to accept the contention of the complainant/PW.1. If really any rights of

PW.1 are infringed, he shall approach to the Court by seeking proper remedies.

12.For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Sections 420 and 506 IPC against accused No.1.

13.In the result, accused No.1 is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable 7CC.55 of 2009 under Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of March, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Sri K. Dastaiah -NIL- PW.2: Sri Bala Babu PW.3: Sri Balaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Agreement of sale dt. 29.11.2006 scribed on white paper. Ex.P2: Certified copy of sale deed -NIL- Ex.P3: Complaint

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Banswada.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.51 of 2011 Between: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Banswada.

..Complainant.

AND

Talati Suresh S/o Jalam Singh, aged 42 years, Lambada, agriculture R/o Koyyagutta of Tadkole GP, Banswada

..Accused.

This case came before me on 18-3-2014 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the complainant, and of Sri J. Dattatreya, Counsel

for the accused and the matter having heard and having stood over for

consideration, till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Banswada, has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.28/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows:

On 12.2.2011 at 1430 hours, the complainant Badra Chatru

Singh (LW.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that on 11.2.2011 at about 9.00 am while he was standing in front of his house, one Goremiya came there and asked him to repay the amount of Rs.2,800/- which was given to him earlier. He replied that previously as his nephew Suresh (accused) got agreed to pay

Rs.1900/- to the said Goremiay, as such, asked him to go and collect

Rs.1900/- from Suresh and the remaining amount will be paid to him.

As such, Goremiya went to Suresh who was available at nearby hotel and asked him to pay Rs.1900/-. Then, Suresh came to the complainant and told him that the said money was already paid by 2 him and nothing remains with him to pay. Then, the complainant stated to Suresh that he has not paid that amount, then immediately

Suresh took a stick and beat on his head, which caused bleeding injury. Hence, he requested the police to take action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, LW.9 P. Madhusudhan Reddy, HC, registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2011 under Sec. 324 IPC against the accused and investigated into.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused under Section 324 of IPC on 15-3-2011.

4.After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and when the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, charge under Section 324 IPC was framed and read over and explained the charge to the accused in

Hindi.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5 No material objects are marked. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8.Now the point for determination is 3 Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused?

9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.2.2011 while PW.1 was standing in front of his house, PW.6 came there and asked him to repay the amount of Rs.2,800/- which was given to him earlier. He replied that previously as his nephew Suresh (accused) got agreed to pay Rs.1900/- to PW.6, as such, he asked him to go and collect

Rs.1900/- from Suresh and the remaining amount will be paid to him.

Accordingly, he approached the accused and requested to pay the said amount. The accused came to PW.1 and told him that the said money was already paid by him and nothing remains with him to pay. Then, the complainant stated to Suresh that he has not paid that amount, then immediately Suresh took a stick and beat on his head, which caused bleeding injury. In order to prove this aspect, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5, and 7.

10.PW.1 is the injured person in this case, PW.4 is wife of P.W.1,

PW.5 is panch for scene of offence, and PW.7 is the medical officer.

PW.1 deposed that about two years, when he was in the house, the accused came to his house, beat with a stick on his head, due to which, he received head injury. He further deposed that at the time of incident took place, PWs.2 and 3 also witnessed. Thereafter, PW.1 was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Banswada, for treatment by PW.4. It is categorically deposed by PW.1 that he was treated as inpatient for a period of 8 days. On the next day of incident, he lodged Ex.P1. The evidence of PW.4 is also corroborating with the evidence of PW.1 to the extent of the incident occurred. It is specifically deposed by PW.4 that the accused with previous enmity he beat PW.1 intentionally for 4

Rs.1800/-. It is also clear that the dispute took place with regard to money transaction between PW.1 and asked and also one Goremiya.

The Goremiya was examined as PW.6 and he deposed nothing. His evidence is discarded in toto.

11.Coming to the evidence of PW.5 who is panch for scene of offence, he deposed that police conducted scene of offence in

Koyyagutta village with regard to a scuffle took place between the accused and PW.1. Ex.P4 is the CD form, and Ex.P5 is the rough sketch. It shows that the police visited the house of PW.1 and conducted panchanama but no weapon was seized. Coming to the evidence of the Medical Officer, he deposed that on 12.2.2011 he examined PW.1 and found that one laceration measuring 5 x ½ x ½ cm., on the scalp region. Laceration on the right palm. Abrasion on the left scapular. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate issued by PW.7. On a careful perusal of Ex.P7, it appears that the PW.1 was examined by the doctor on 11.2.2011. The evidence of PW.7 is corroborating with the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and also the contents of Ex.P1 to the extent of the incident took place between the accused and PW.1.

Admittedly, the said dispute arose for Rs.1,800/-.

12.Coming to the evidence of PWs.8 and 9, who are Investigating

Officers. PW.8 deposed that on the basis of Ex.P1, he registered the

FIR for the offence punishable under Sec.324. Ex.P8 is the FIR.

Thereafter, PW.8 recorded the statements of PW.1 and referred him to

Government Hospital for treatment. PW.8 further deposed that he visited scene of offence and also recorded the statements of LWs.2 to 4 and 6. The evidence of PW.9 clearly shows that the accused 5 voluntarily surrendered before him. After completion of investigation,

PW.9 filed charge-sheet correctly. But, the Investigating Officers did not put any effort to seize the alleged weapon with which the accused beat the PW.1. However, the prosecution failed to prove this case under Sec.324 IPC. But, the facts and circumstances of the case inspires the confidence of this Court that the accused is liable for punishment under Sec. 323 IPC.

19.In the result, accused is found guilty and he is convicted under

Section 248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sections 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Banswada.

20.The accused is present, and when questioned about the quantum of sentence, he stated that he is innocent and he has old aged parents and that he is only the breadwinner of his family and his detention in the jail would cause much hardship and loss to his family members for their livelihood and requested to take a lenient view in sentencing them. However, this Court is not inclined to apply the provisions of PO Act as the offence appears to be serious in attacking on PW.1 and PW.1 received injuries. In view of the above reasons, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer SI for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Sec.323 IPC.

As the offence under Sec.324 is a bailable offence, there is no question of remand period. The certified copy of this judgment is given to the accused on free of cost. The accused is appraised of his right of 6 appeal against his judgment within limitation to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nizamabad.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Sri Badra Chatru Singh -NIL- PW.2: Sri B. Venkaiah PW.3: Sri B. Mohan PW.4: Smt. B. Choki Bai PW.5: Sri Phool Singh PW.6: Sri Goremiya PW.7: Dr. Ch. Ashwini Babu PW.8: Sri P. Madhusudhan Reddy (IO) PW.9: Sri . Sudhakar (IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Complaint by PW.1. -NIL- Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.3 Ex.P4 : CD form Ex.P5: Rough sketch Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW.6 Ex.P7: Wound certificate Ex.P8: FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Banswada.

CC No.51 of 20117

Form No. 73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eeshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.51 of 2011 Between: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Banswada.

..Complainant.

AND Talati Suresh S/o Jalam Singh, aged 42 years, Lambada, agriculture R/o Koyyagutta of Tadkole GP, Banswada

..Accused.

Offence :Under Sec. 324 IPC

Date of occurrence:11/02/11

Date of complaint :12/02/11

Date of apprehension of :18.2.2011 accused

Date of release on bail:18.2.2011

Date of commencement of trial :07/01/14

Date of closure of trial :13.3.2014

Finding:Found guilty

Sentence / Order :Accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. One thousand only), in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer SI for a period of one month,fortheoffence punishable under Sec.323 IPC. As the offence under Sec.324 is a bailable offence, there is no question of remand period. The certified copy of this judgment is given to the accused on free of cost. The accused is appraised of his right of appeal against his judgment within limitation to the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Nizamabad.

Explanation for the delay --

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

CC No.51 of 20118

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

AT BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M., Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C.No. 112 of 2011 Between: The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Banswada.

..Complainant.

AND

Pattapoori Santosh Kumar S/o Somaiah, aged 33 years, Caste: Goud, Occu: Driver of Banswada Depot bearing staff E.No.932236 (Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-3771 of Banswada Depot, N/o Japergadda village and Mandal, Tq. Ghanpur of Warangal District.

..Accused.

This case came before me on 18-3-2014 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the complainant and Sri K. Ramakanth Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, P.S. Banswada, has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.66/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows:

That on 6.4.2011 at 1330 hours, the complainant LW.1 Kadavath

Kishan came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that on that day at about 12.00 noon his father Ranaja while returning from

Borlam to Koyyagutta on bicycle and when he reached Borlam shivar, meanwhile the RTC Bus bearing No.AP-11Z-3771, which was proceeding from Borlam towards Banswada, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed his father’s bicycle from backside, due to which, his father died on the spot. On the above complaint, LW.10 N.

2CC. 112 of 2011

Krishna Murhy, ASI, registered a case in Cr.No.66/2011 under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated into.

3.This Court took cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A, of the Indian Penal Code on 18-5-2011 against the accused.

4.After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and when the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and Ex.P.1 to P.8. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

.

6.The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard, the arguments from both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused?

9.It is the simple case of the prosecution that on 6.4.2011 the deceased Ranaja while returning from Borlam to Koyyagutta on bicycle and when he reached Borlam shivar, meanwhile the RTC Bus bearing

No.AP-11Z-3771, which was proceeding from Borlam towards Banswada, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed due to which, the deceased died on the spot. In order to prove this case, the prosecution relied upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and he gave Ex.P1 complaint about the accident. He deposed that on 6.4.2011 he received telephone call from PW.4 about the 3CC. 112 of 2011 accident. Soon after receiving the phone call, he reached to scene of offence and found that the deceased was already died. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, who is wife of deceased, she has also deposed the same version of PW.1. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, who is brother of deceased, he deposed the same version of PWs.1 and 2. The evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 is treated as hearsay evidence. Hence, their evidence is discarded in toto.

10.Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, who is eyewitness to the accident and who gave information to PWs.1 to 3 about the death of Ranjya. He deposed that about two years back while he was coming from his agricultural land towards Koyyagutta, his deceased brother Ranjya was also coming in opposite direction on a bicycle. He further deposed that one RTC Bus dashed to the deceased cycle, due to which, he received bleeding injuries including blood came from Nose. He further deposed that soon after the accident, he informed the same to PW.1 on phone.

He identified the accused in the Court-hall who drove the Bus but he did not depose the crime vehicle number. In the cross-examination of PW.4, he stated that police shown the accused to him, as such, he is identifying the accused. Again witness added that he witnessed the driver/accused in the bus itself. On careful observation of the attitude of PW.4, it is doubtful whether he really identified the accused or at the instance of police or any other person interested therein. Hence, his evidence cannot be believable and this Court did not take into consideration his evidence.

11.Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6. The evidence of PW.5 shows that on 6.4.2011, the police requested him to take photos of the deceased person. Ex.P2 and P3 are photographs of deceased person.

The evidence of PW.6, who is panch for scene of offence and also panch 4CC. 112 of 2011 for inquest over the dead body of deceased. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama of the deceased. Coming to the evidence of PW.7, who is

Motor Vehicle Inspector, he issued Ex.P4, MVI report, stating that the accident was taken place not with any mechanical defects. The evidence of PW.7 is not helpful to the accused. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 9 who are Investigating Officers and their evidence is needless to appreciate. On the other hand, the accused not disputed the death of deceased person.

12.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients have to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts.

a) the death of the deceased must be proved.

b) such death, injury is caused by the rash or negligence on the part of the accused.

c) the identification of the accused must be done at the relevant point of time and crime vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing No. AP- 11Z-3771) which is involved in commission of offence.

13.For the reasons stated above there was no identity of the accused proved by the prosecution besides rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Admittedly, the death of deceased Ranjya is not disputed even by the accused. It is crystal clear that the deceased was died in the road accident on 06.04.2011 but at the relevant point of time the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner is not established by the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty and is acquitted under

Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304-A 5CC. 112 of 2011 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of March, 2014.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Sri K. Kishan -NIL- PW.2: Smt. K. Sali Bai PW.3: Sri K. Sakru PW.4: Sri G. Kishan PW.5: Sri B. Prashanth PW.6: Sri Sawai Singh PW.7: Sri Shaik Raja Mohammed PW.8: Sri N. Krishna Murthy (IO) PW.9: Sri A. Sudhakar (IO)

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : Complaint by PW.1. -NIL- Ex.P2 : Three photos of deceased Ex.P3 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P4 : MVI report Ex.P5: FIR Ex.P6: CD Form Ex.P7: Rough sketch Ex.P8: PME report

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

6CC. 112 of 2011

Form No. 73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eeshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 24th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.112 of 2011 Between: The State represented by Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S.Banswada.

..Complainant.

AND

P. Santosh kumar

..Accused.

Offence :Under Sec. 304-A IPC

Date of occurrence:06/04/11

Date of complaint :06/04/11

Date of apprehension of :08/04/11 accused

Date of release on bail:08/04/11

Date of commencement of trial :04/11/13

Date of closure of trial :10/03/14

Finding:Found not guilty

Sentence / Order :In the result, accused is found not guilty and is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Explanation for the delay --

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Banswada.

CC No.332 of 20111

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.332 of 2011 Between: The State represented by Inspector of Police, SHO, P.S.Banswada.

..Complainant.

AND

Sabavath Balram S/o Shankar, aged 20 years, Lambada, agriculturist R/o Jakkaldani Thana of BOrlam village of Banswada Mandal

..Accused.

This case came before me on 25-3-2014 for final hearing in the presence of APP for the complainant, and of Sri S. Manikya Reddy, Counsel for the accused and the matter having heard and having stood over for consideration, till this day the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, SHO, P.S.Banswada, has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.223/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused.

2.The brief allegations of the prosecution are as follows:

On 12.11.2011 at 2.30 pm, the complainant Palthya Gopi (LW.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that he gave Rs.

1,000/- towards loan to one Sabavath Balram (accused). On 11.11.2011 at 5.00 pm behind the Anganwadi School at his Thanda when he asked for repayment of said loan amount, the accused made him to believe that he is giving Rs.200/- to him, but he again forcibly took that amount and when the complainant asked as to why he is taking back money, then the accused stated to him “what is to be

CC No.332 of 20112

given” and then the accused lifted a stone from the ground and thrown it on the complainant, due to which, he sustained bleeding injury to head. Hence, he requested the police to take action against the accused. Basing on the complaint, LW.7 M. Muthaiah, Inspector of

Police, registered a case in Cr.No.223 of 2011 under Sec. 324 IPC against the accused and investigated into.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused under Section 324 of IPC on 23-11-2011.

4.After appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and when the accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Hence, charge under Section 324 IPC was framed and read over and explained the charge to the accused in

Hindi.

5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5. No material objects are marked. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence against him in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.

8.Now the point for determination is

CC No.332 of 20113

Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused?

9. It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.11.2011 behind the

Anganwadi School LW.1 P. Gopiya asked for repayment of Rs.1,000/- with the accused. The accused gave Rs.1,000/- to LW.1 as soon as the accused gave and forcibly took back the said amount from LW.1.

In this regard there was dispute took place between accused and

LW.1. In order to prove this case, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. PW.1 is the eyewitness, PW.2 is panch for scene of offence, and PW.3 is the eyewitness.

10.Coming to the evidence of PW.1, she deposed that about two years back, the LW.1 came to her house with bleeding head injury.

When PW.1 asked about the injury, the LW.1 stated her that the accused beat with a stone on his head. The evidence of PW.1 appears to be hearsay evidence. Hence, her evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, who is panch for scene of offence, he deposed that police conducted scene of offence in

Jakkaldani thanda with regard to a scuffle took place between the accused and LW.1. Ex.P1 is the CD form, and Ex.P2 is the rough sketch. It shows that the police visited the scene of offence and conducted its panchanama but no weapon was seized. Coming to the evidence of the Medical Officer Dr. Suresh (PW.5), he deposed that on 12.11.2011 he examined LW.1 and found one laceration measuring 3 x ½ x ½ cm., over the forehead of LW.1. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by PW.5 and the nature of injuries are simple. On a careful perusal of Ex.P5, it appears that the LW.1 was examined by the doctor on 12.11.2011.

CC No.332 of 20114

11.Coming to the evidence of PW.4, who is Investigating Officer.

PW.4 deposed that on the basis of complaint lodged by LW.1, he registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC.

Ex.P4 is the FIR. Thereafter, PW.4 recorded the statements of LW.1 and referred him to Government Hospital for treatment. PW.4 further deposed that he visited scene of offence and also recorded the statements of LWs.2 and 3. But, the Investigating Officer did not put any effort to seize the alleged weapon with which the accused beat the

LW.1. However, the prosecution did not examine the injured person as his presence cannot be secured hence this Court closed his evidence on the report of prosecution. There is no injured person’s evidence on record to corroborate with the other witnesses. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove this case under Sec.324 IPC.

12.In the result, accused is found not guilty and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of March, 2014.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW.1: Smt. Gangubai -NIL- PW.2: Sri D. Bheem Singh PW.3: Smt. K. Changi Bai PW.4: Sri M. Muttaiah (IO)

CC No.332 of 20115

PW.5: Dr A. Suresh

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 : CD form -NIL- Ex.P2 : Rough sketch Ex.P3 : Complaint Ex.P4 : FIR Ex.P5: Wound certificate

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

CC No.332 of 20116

FORM No.73

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

BANSWADA

PRESENT: Sri V.Eshwaraiah, B.Com.,LL.M.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014

C.C.No.332 of 2011 Between: The State represented by Inspector of Police, SHO, P.S.Banswada.

..Complainant.

AND

Sabavath Balram S/o Shankar, aged 20 years, Lambada, agriculturist R/o Jakkaldani Thana of BOrlam village of Banswada Mandal

..Accused.

Offence :Under Sec. 324 IPC Date of occurrence:11/11/11 Date of complaint :12/11/11 Date of apprehension of accused :18/11/11 Date of release on bail:18/11/11 Date of commencement of trial :24/2/2014 Date of closure of trial :25/03/2014 Finding:Found not guilty Sentence / Order :Accused is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for the delay :--

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Banswada.