V Nageswara Naik

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR SPECIAL

MOBILE COURT, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: SRI.V.NAGESWARA RAO NAIK, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC/ Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

Monday, The Eleventh (11th) day of December, 2017

C.C.No. 449 OF 2010

(Crime No. 33/2008 of G.D.Nellore P.S.)

Between :-

The State Rep. By Sub Inspector of police, G.D.Nellore Police Station

...Complainant

And :-

1.P.S.Manohar Naidu, age 52 years, S/o P.N.Shadeva Naidu

2.P.S.Murali Naidu, 43 years, S/o P.N.Shadeva Naidu,

3.Damu Naidu, age 55 years, S/o Muthu Pullaiah Naidu,

4.Rajani,age 35 years, S/o Vajram, SC

5.Nataraj, age 45 years, S/o Chinnamunaswamy, SC

6.Ramu, age 32 years, S/o Narayanaiah, SC

7.Kannaiah,age 45 years, S/o Kuchaiah, SC

8.Sekhar,age 30 years, S/o Nimmali Chinnabba, SC

9.Govindaiah, age 47 years, S/o Bhupathaiah, SC

10.Jayaram,age 37 years, S/o Kuppaiah, SC

11.Ponnuswamy, age 49 years, S/o Bhupathaiah, SC 1 to 11 are residents of Pachigunta Village and H.Wada.

12.Basha @ Hasanjham, (Car driver of P.S.Manohar Naidu) age 36 years, S/o Asgar Ali, Avalakonda.

13.Nagaiaha Chetty, age 45 years, S/o Narayanaswamy (Died)

14.Moahn Babu, age 25 years, S/o Eswaraiah

15.Chandraiah, age 32 years, S/o Eswaraiah

16.Sankar Achari, age 30 years, S/o Subramanyam Achari

17.Narasimhulu Naidu, age 60 years, S/o Ramachandra Naidu

18.Ravi, age 30 years, S/o Seenaiah

19.Nagaiah, age 25 years, S/o Seenaiah

20.Kumar, age 32 years, S/o Late Munirathanam

21.Govindaswamy, age 31 years, S/o Kalaiah

22.Arunababu, age 37 years, S/o Kalaiah

23.Ashok, age 25 years, S/o Annamaiah 12 to 23 are resident of Pachigunta Village and H.Wada.

24.Sudhakar Reddy, Thimmareddypalle

25.Devasundram, G.D.Nellore H.Wada

26.Bujjamma, age 35 years, W/o Vadivalu,Mitta H.Wads, Pachigunta

27.Murugamma, age 51 years, W/o late Rajiah, Thumgundram H.Wada

28.Ramanamma, age 42 years, W/o Gurunadha Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

29.Saraswathi, age 40 years, W/o Damodara Naidu, Kamma, 2

Pachigunta

30.Sulochana,age50years, W/o Narasimhulu Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

31.Rajamma, age 57 years, W/o late Chinnamuaswamy, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

32.Alimelu, age 25 years, W/o Govindaswamy, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

33.Kumari, age 50 years, W/o P.S.Manohar, Kamma, Pachigunta

34.Danamma, age 42 years, W/o Annamaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

35.Kalavathamma, age 40 years, W/o Annamaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

36.Hamsa, age 58 years, W/o Srinivasulu, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

37.Vadivelu, age 43 years, S/o Munaswamy, SC, Mitta H.W, Pachigunta

38.Thavamani, age 36 years, S/o Munaswamy, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

39.Rajani, age 29 years, S/o Late Munirathnam, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

40.Rajani, age 29 years, S/o Markondaiah, SC, Pachigunta, Mitta H.W.

41.Munaswamy, age 55 years, S/o Gutaiah, SC, pachigunta H.W.(Died)

42.Kumari, age 35 years, W/o Kannaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

43.Murugamma, age 45 years, W/o Irasaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

44.Lakshmaiah Naidu, age 54 years, S/o Ramachandra Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

45.Govindamma, age 47 years, D/o Dhoopathaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W

46.Balaji, age 32 years, S/o Munaiah, SC, AAW, pachigunta.

(Case against the accused A13, A38, A43, A48 Abated as

they are died)

... Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 27.11.2017 in the presence of Sri. M.Damodaram, Advocate for Accused and Learned Assistant

Public prosecutor for Complainant and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, G.D.Nellore PS, filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under section 147, 148, 341, 427 R/w.149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Crime No.33/2008 of G.D.Nellore Police

Station.

2. The contents of the charge sheet in brief are as follows :-

On 25.04.2008 Prajapadam Programme headed by LW.30 the Deputy

Speaker was held at Pachigunta and A1 herein took it as opportunity to exhibit his supremacy in the village and also to send signals to the political party supported by him about his activities formed the other members of 3 the group with a common intention to disturb and obstruct the official

Prajapadham and therefore A2 to A46 under the leader ship of A1 formed in to an unlawful assembly, held rival Prajapatham nearby to the

Prajapatham conducted by the Deputy Speaker and there by obstructed the Govt. Programme for some time. At the first instance as per the complaint A1 to A23 were arrayed as accused and later on during the course of investigation the other accused A24 to A48 were added.

3. At the same time few followers of A1 went and picked up quarrel near the foundation of A11 Ponnuswamy and on the advice of police that necessary action will be taken against the responsible person they have again left that place and all accused i.e., A1 to A48 and others under the leadership of A1 and A2 squatted on the main road thereby obstructing the traffic and the mob having been armed with deadly weapons lid stones, at about 2.15 pm started raising slogans against

LW.30 the Deputy Speaker and staged darna and from the mob A1, A3,

A12 and A24 and few others feinted stones as the result, the Center side window of Scorpio No.TN23-AX-999 was broken and thus damage was caused to the said vehicle. Further due to the feinting of stones by them other vehicles i.e., AP9-BL-3234 and KA04-MD-4046 were also damaged.

The Sub-Inspector of Police, G.D.Nellore Police Station registered case in

Cr.No.33/2008 U/Sec.147, 148, 341, 427 IPC r/w 149 IPC U/Sec.3(x) od

SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989, basing on the evidence of witnesses and material available in this case, the offence U/Sec.3(X) SC/ST/POA Act, 1989 was deleted as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor in

RC.No.2/6122/87/08, dt.18.11.2008. After completion of entire

investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge sheet.

4

4. On perusal of record, the learned predecessor in office taken cognizance of offence under sections 147, 148, 341, 427 R/w.149 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860. and proceeded with the case.

5. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case documents furnished as contemplated under section 207 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 ( in short Cr.P.C.).

6. The Accused are examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation for the offence under sections 147, 148, 341, 427 R/w.149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860., for which they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15.

8. On closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examine under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating substance available in evidence, for which the Accused denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence is closed.

9. Heard.Perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under sections 147, 148, 341, 427 R/w.149 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt ?

11. POINT: The prosecution examined defacto complainant

N.Chengalraya Chetty who is LW1 as PW.1 he deposed that he know Lw1 to Lw27 and all the accused. on 25.4.2008 Prajapadam meeting was held

Pachigunta harijanawada at a pile stone, at about 10.00 a.m. all the officials were also came and all were gathered there. The MLA. One

Kuthuhalama came present. One ponnuswamy has constructed a wall 5 across the road prior to two days of the Prajapadam meeting. The persons who are suffering due to the said wall represented the MLA about their grievance and on that the MLA insisted the said persons to remove the said wall. When they are removing the said wall A1 and his followers came attacked on them. Due to that the police came and separated both the groups in the alleged incident some of them sustained injuries. At that time some body called the ambulance and while shifted the injured to the hospital the followers of A1 restrained the said vehicle on the road and thereafter the said mob pelted stones on the vehicle of MLA., and on the other vehicles. Later the police warned the said mob and sent the ambulance to the hospital. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

12. During Cross examination he deposed that the said

Ponnuswamy (A11) filed a civil suit against N.Chiranjivi and others and obtained injunction order in IA No.1048/2007 in OS No.1031/2007 on the

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in his favour. He did not observe whether the said Ponnuswamy (A11) has shown the said injunction order to the said mob. There is no cement road at which the alleged wall was constructed. Witness adds that the same was using as a way. Admittedly, he belongs to congress party and the accused are belongs to Telugu desam party. It is true all the prosecution witnesses are belongs to congress party. Police examined him on the same day. He was present at the alleged scene of offence at about 4.00 p.m. witness again said that police examined him on the same day at 4.00 p.m. at Kalepalle. The distance between the alleged scene of offence and the Kalepalle village is nearly ½ furlong. The alleged incident was happened between 10.00 and 11.00 a.m. nearly 100 members were gathered there and he did not 6 specifically know their names. He did not state before the police the names of the 100 members who were gathered there.

13. During Cross examination by A8, A11,A27 and A47, he deposed that there are disputes between their group the group of the accused. At the time of alleged incident the congress party was in ruling.

Further he denied the rest of the suggestions.

14. The prosecution examined M.Manikyam who is LW2 as PW2, he deposed that he was residing at Pachigunta and live by coolie work. He know all the accused as they are his villagers. About 7 or 8 years back rachabanda program was held in Pachigunta village. He was also present in the said program. At that time they asked the MLA that there is no way to them to ingress and aggress to the village. When they requested the

MLA Kutuhalama then she insisted to remove the wall which was constructed across the way for which the said A1, A2 and their followers came and beat the villagers. Subsequently they also pelted stones on the car of MLA. In the alleged incident some people were injured. Later the police called the ambulance and shifted the injured to the hospital then the followers of A1 and A2 restrained the said vehicle at Kalepalle. On that the police came and warn them and then shifted the injured to the hospital in the said ambulance. Police examined him and recorded statement.

15. During Cross examination he deposed that he was native of

Pachigunta village. The alleged incident was happened in between 10.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. Admittedly, he was not present at the alleged scene of offence after 12.00 noon. I was present in my coolie work at

Konda samudram at about 2.00 p.m., witness again said that police did not examined him. Admittedly, the land on which the alleged wall 7 constructed belongs to A11 and A11 filed a civil suit and obtained injunction order in his favour. Admittedly, though there is an injunction order they damaged the wall at the instance of MLA. He belongs to the party of MLA Kutuhalama. It is true the alleged incident was happened at the instigation of MLA and we got lodged the present case at the instigation of MLA. He did not know who pelted the stones. The alleged incident was happened at Pachigunta. He admitted that alleged incident was happened in the street but not on the way to Kalepalle village. It is true there are two groups in Pachigunta harijanawada and he belongs to one Chiranjivi group. It is true A11 belongs to the group of one Ramu. It is true occasionally the said groups will quarreled each other. It is true at the time of alleged incident the MLA is also in our group. It is true the government has given a patta to A11. Further he denied the suggestions.

16. The prosecution examined Deputy CEO, P.Malati Kumari who is

LW4 as PW3, she know Lw1 Ramaswamy as he is the sarpanch of

Pachigunta village and PW1, to PW27. She did not know the names of other accused. She was instructed by her superiors to prepare a schedule for conducting “Prajalavadaku Palana” in the month of April, 2008 and also received a petition from the surpunch of that village that the panchayat building is not in his possession. On that myself, one Devendra Babu

EORD and panchayat secretary Krishnamurthy went to pachigunta village for conducting enquiry. After completion of the enquiry she intend to fix the venue for conducting the program of “Prajalavadaku palana” by visiting the school and harijanawada and fixed the venue at Harijanawada on 25.4.2008. on 25.4.2008 herself, EORD and all the Mandal level officials i.e. Tahsildar, RI, Surveyor, Panchayat secretary, AERWS, AEPR went to look after the arrangements for conducting the said program and 8 subsequently G.Kutuhalamma, Deputy speaker and MPP Rupa Reddy and

ZPTC Krishna Reddy and Singaram, pushparaj, Ekambaram, Venkat

Reddy, Gunasekhar Reddy, Devarajulu also accompanied with her. When the meeting was going on by explaining the schemes of governments to the public gathered there at that time some body by placing a sham Iyana and mikes in the school and by prompting and caused obstruction to the official program. At that time the police persons were also present. On that she insisted the MRO to see that necessary action may be taken against them to conduct the official programme properly. On that the police went to the school and stop the program conducting at the school.

After completion of our programme when they intend to leave the said place and to visit the another place at about 1.30 p.m. At that time there was a mob leading by A1 and raised slogans against the Deputy speaker as “Down Down” and they restrained the vehicles for some time. After 20 minutes with the wordy altercation between the said mob and the police officials and when the vehicles of the officials were proceeding at that time some body from the mob pelted stones on the vehicles and they proceeded from that place and reached near Kalepalle of Varatur panchayat a darna was held by Singaram, Devendra reddy, Pushparaj,

Devaraj, Gunasekhar reddy, Gunasekhar, Babur eddy, Venkat reddy for the happening of alleged incident. They were present there and after knowing the alleged incident by the RDO she also visited there. Later they visited the next program according to their schedule. Police examined her and recorded statement.

17. During Cross examination she deposed that the learned counsels did not turn up till 1.40 p.m. and there is no other go for the court to record the cross examination of the witness as nil since it is a old 9 case pertaining to the year, 2008. Hence cross examination of the witness is recorded as NIL.

18. The prosecution examined defacto complainant V.Ramaswamy as PW.4 he deposed that in the year, 2008 on one day the Prajapadam was held at Pachigunta Harijanawada. He also present in the said meeting.

some galata took place between Ponuswamy and A1 with regard to the wall and one was damaged one Chiranjivi, Ashok and some others subsequently A1 and his followers came and pelted stones with regard to damaging of the wall and they also restrained the officials and also the

MLA and also pelted stones on her. Later the injured were shifted to the government hospital, Chittoor. Due to the said acts the meeting was post pone to one hour. Later he lodged a report before the police. Ex.P1 is the report. Police examined him and recorded statement.

19. During Cross examination he deposed that he belongs to congress party. It is true A1 and his followers are belongs to TDP party. It is true the said Ponuswamy has filed a suit in OS No.1031/2007 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chittoor against and others and also obtained injunction order in IA No. 1048/2007 in his favour. It is true the said wall was damaged by our party members. He did not know whether the accused informed to their members that a civil suit was pending before the court. It is true he did not observe who were present at that time and he did not state before the police the names of A1 and his followers. He did not stated before the police that A1 and his followers pelted stones.

witness again stated that he was not examined by the police.

20. The prosecution examined Perabba as PW.5. PW-5 turned hostile his evidence is not supported the case of the prosecution.

21. The prosecution examined retired Deputy Tahsildar Abdul 10

Kareem as who is LW as PW.6 he deposed that he, MRO, Mandal

Surveyor, VRO, MPP Rupa Reddy, Velkuru Babu Reddy, Chinnabba Reddy and A.E. of Zillaparishad went to attend the official programme of ‘Prajasadasu’ on 25.04.2008. After completing the said programme, when they intend to return about 2-00 P.M. in their vehicles and the vehicle reached the outskirts of Pachigunta they we found some mob was gathered there and they sat across the road and raised slogans as ‘MLA go back’. He heard the sound of pelting stones behind their vehicle.

Immediately they informed the same to the police and the police reached there and they sent away the mob. Subsequently when they enquired about the alleged incident, they came to know that P.S.Manohar Naidu,

Murali Naidu, Surendra Reddy, Daivasundaram are the persons provoked the mob, for that, the alleged incident was happened. Police examined him and recorded statement.

22. During Cross examination he deposed that he did not observe who were present in the alleged mob. He was examined by the Additional

Superintendent of Police and he did not state before the police that

P.S.Manohar Naidu, Murali Naidu, Surendra Reddy, Daivasundaram are the persons who provoked the mob.

23. The prosecution examined PW.7 to PW-12 they turned hostile their evidence is not supported the case of the prosecution.

24. The prosecution examined S.Pushparaj who is LW as PW13 he deposed that on 25.04.2008 a Prajapadham meeting was held at a

Pachigunta village. In the said meeting Depy. Speaker was also attended and some words were exchange between A1 and the Depy. Speaker with regard to Government schemes and raised slogans as “Depy. Speaker down down” and restrained the vehicle of the Depy. Speaker and the 11 police who were present there were disperse them by cautioning them in the mike. Then he left the said place. Police examined and recorded his statement.

25. During Cross examination he deposed that at the time of alleged incident he was member of the congress party and A1 belongs to

TDP. The alleged incident was happened at about 2.00 pm. Further he denied the suggestions. Cross-examination by A8, A11, A27, and A47 reported nil.

26. The prosecution examined ZPTC Member for G.D.Nellore

Mandal S. Gunasekhar, as PW.14 he deposed that on 25.04.2008 a

Prajapadham meeting was held at Pachigunta and the Depy. Speaker,

MPTC, ZPTC, MPDO, MRO, Vice MPP, RI, Tahsildar and MPTC member

Pushparaj, Singaram, Devendra Reddy were also attended to the said meeting. When ZPTC Krishna Reddy, Depty. Speker Kuthuhalamma and

MPP Roopa Reddy were proceeding in three vehicles after completion of the said meeting at that time A1 to A3 along with 100 members were restrained the said three vehicles and raised slogans as “ Depy. Speaker down down” and she against to Daliths” and behaved high handedly.

Then the police cautioned them in the mike to disperse from there but they did not head the words of the police. Prior to this incident some members were sustained injuries and the 108 Ambulance came there and they restrained the 108 Ambulance and the police with the help of

Congress party members they disperse the mob and then three vehicles were proceeded from there. When the vehicles are proceeding at that time

A1 to A3 and the members in the mob pelted stones on the said vehicles.

The MPP vehicle right side door glass was damaged. Then we proceeded in the vehicles from pachigunta to Kalepalli. Police also captured the 12 incident by way of Video-graph. Police examined and recorded his statement.

27. During Cross examination he deposed that the Addl. SP examined him on the date of happening of alleged incident and at that time Sub-Inspector of Police, and Inspector of police were also present.

Police examined him after two or three days of happening of the incident.

At the time of alleged incident he was not acting any member in the

Congress party. It is true, A1 belongs to TTP party. He did not remember whether he has stated before the police that A1 to A3 restrained the

Government vehicles. He has stated before the police that A1 to A3 raised slogans. The said vehicle is a Scorpio vehicle and registration number of one vehicle is TN23AX999. Witness adds that the said vehicle was got damaged and belongs to MPP and it is also Scorpio. The other vehicle belongs to ZPTC and it is a TATA Safari vehicle. Question. The learned counsel for the accused posed a question that he did not state before the police that the vehicle of the Depty. Speaker was damaged? Answer. The

Depty. Speaker vehicle was also slightly damaged and he has stated

before the police. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before

the police the vehicle of Depty. Speaker was damaged. Cross-examination by A8, A11, A27, and A47 reported nil.

28. The prosecution examined PW.15 to PW-20 they turned hostile their evidence is not supported the case of the prosecution.

29. The prosecution examined Inspector of Police, B.Ashok

Kumar, who is LW as PW.21 he deposed that on 25.04.2008 at about 6.00 pm, he was present in the police station PW.4 came to police station and present written complaint. Basing on complaint he registered a case in

Cr.No.33/2008, u/Sec.147, 148, 341, 427 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3(X) Sc 13 and ST, POA Act, 1989 and issued original First Information Report before court and all concerned Police Station. Ex.P15 is the original First

Information Report.

30. During Cross examination he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he was not registered the case.

31. The prosecution examined Inspector of Police Vigilance and

Enforcement Department K.Maddaiah Achary who is LW as PW.22 he deposed that after assuming charge in G.D.Nellore Police Station he received CD File from Addl. Superintendent of Police, Chittoor (LW.34) as the prima facie not established under SC/ST 1989. Thus he served notice to complaint V.Ramaswamy (PW.4) as attracted the prima facie u/Sec.147, 148, 341, 427 of IPC. He also received the proceedings of

Superintendent of police, Chittoor dt.18.11.2008 and the same was submitted Hon’ble Court. He filed memo for deletion of SC/ST Act sections. The accused A1 to A23 accused interim stay of arrest from

Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad. He made efforts to arrest A24 to A46 but

in vain and their where about are not known. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

32. During Cross examination he denied the suggestion that he did did not verify investigation done by LW.34 and investigated the case properly and did not received any proceedings from Superintendent of police for deletion of SC/ST Act sections and that the investigation was table investigation.

33. The learned APP argued that prosecution established that the guilt of the accused committed offence and that case was proved against the accused. The learned counsel for Accused argued that the Accused was falsely implicated in this case and investigating officer not 14 investigated properly into roots of the case.

34. On perusal of the record in pursuance of evidence of PW.1 he deposed that A11 filed Ponnuswamy (A11) filed a civil suit against

N.Chiranjivi and others and obtained injunction order in IA No.1048/2007 in OS No.1031/2007 on the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor in his favour. By knowing the injunction order the defacto complainant damaged the wall. Admittedly, he belongs to congress party and the accused are belongs to Telugu desam party and all the prosecution witnesses are belongs to congress party. PW2 stated that he was not present at the alleged scene of offence after 12.00 noon. Admittedly, the land on which the alleged wall constructed belongs to A11 and A11 filed a civil suit and obtained injunction order in his favour. He admitted that, though there is an injunction order they damaged the wall at the instance of MLA as they belongs to the party of MLA Kutuhalama. It is true the alleged incident was happened at the instigation of MLA and we got lodged the present case at the instigation of MLA. PW3 not cross examined. PW4 deposed that he belongs to congress party. Admittedly, A1 and his followers are belongs to

TDP party and the said Ponuswamy has filed a suit in OS No.1031/2007 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Chittoor against and others and also obtained injunction order in IA No. 1048/2007 in his favour. It is true the said wall was damaged by their party members. The evidence of PW5,

PW7 to PW12, PW15 to PW20 not supported the case of prosecution as they all are turned hostile. PW6 deposed that he did not observe who were present in the alleged mob. PW13 he deposed that at the time of alleged incident he was member of the congress party and A1 belongs to

TDP. The alleged incident was happened at about 2.00 pm. PW14 Police examined him after two or three days of happening of the incident. At the time of alleged incident he was not acting any member in the Congress party. It is true, A1 belongs to TTP party. PW21 he deposed that he denied the suggestion that he was not registered the case. he denied the suggestion that he did not verify investigation done by LW.34 and investigated the case properly and did not received any proceedings from

Superintendent of police for deletion of SC/ST Act sections and that the investigation was table investigation.

35. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the 15 accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

36. It is evident from the record that the investigating agency neither seized any material objects with which, the accused were allegedly damaged the wall and formed mob and beat the injured persons and also any blood stained clothes also not seized. Apart from that, P.Ws.2, PW3,

PW5, PW6, and PW14 are the independent witnesses, who witnessed the incident had not supported the case of the prosecution. PW5, PW7 to

PW12, PW15 to PW20 also not supported the case of prosecution as they all are turned hostile and PW21 and PW22 also not supported the case of prosecution and nothing elicited by the prosecution to prove the guilt of thee accused.

37. Basing on the inconsistency of evidences of prosecution witnesses with the documentary evidence and keeping in view of the injunction order at civil court, the prosecution was not able to establish their case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, it is unsafe to rely on the case of the prosecution evidence to convict the accused.

38. In these facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opined that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

39. In the result, the accused A1, A2, A4 to A12, A14 to A33,

A35, A36, 38 to 42, and A44 to A48, are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section.147, 148, 341, 427 of I.P.C., and for the same, the accused are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. There is no property in the case and hence no orders on property. The bail bonds of accused on record treated as the bail bonds secured U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C., to secure the appearance of accused before appellate Court in case of any 16 appeal or petition against the Judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for six months, thereafter the same shall stands cancelled.

Typed to dictation to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 11th day of December, 2017.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of

Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW.1. N.Chengalraya Chetty NIL PW.2. M.Manikyam PW.3. P.Malati Kumari PW.4. V.Ramaswamy PW.5. Perabba PW.6. Abdul Kareem PW.7. K.Babu Reddy PW.8. K.Sinagaram PW.9. V.M.Devendra Reddy 10.PW.10. B.Ekambaram 11.PW.11. R.Gunasekhar 12.PW.12. N.Devarajulu 13.PW.13. S.Pushparaj 14.PW.14. S.Gunasekhar 15.PW.15. M.Gopi 16.PW.16. T.Ramaiah 17.PW.17. D.Krishna Reddy 18.PW.18. N.Rama Murthy 19.PW.19. B.Sankaraiah 20.PW.20. K.Chinnama Reddy 21.PW.21. B.Ashok Kumar 22.PW.22. K.Maddaiah Achary

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

1.Ex.P1. is the report NIL

2.Ex.P2. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.5.

17

3.Ex.P3. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.7

4.Ex.P4. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.8

5.Ex.P5. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.9

6.Ex.P6. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.10

7.Ex.P7. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.11

8.Ex.P8. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.12

9.Ex.P9. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.15

10.Ex.P10. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.16

11.Ex.P11. is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.17

12.Ex.P12. is the signature of PW.18 in seizure mahazarnama.

13.Ex.PW.13. is the signature of PW.18 in the scene observation Mahazar.

14.Ex.PW.14. is the 161 CrPC statmen of Pw.14.

15.Ex.PW.15 is the original First Information Report U/Sec.147, 148, 341, 427 r/w 149 IPC.

Material Objects

NIL

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of

Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

18

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, CHITTOOR.

CALENDAR IN CC.NO.449/2010

Date of occurrence 25.04.2008 Date of complaint 26.04.2008 Date of taken on file 09.02.2009 Date of commencement of trial 29.08.2016 Date of closure of trial 08.12.2017 Date of sentence or order 11.12.2017

Name of the complainant The State Rep. By Sub Inspector of police, G.D.Nellore Police Station Name of the accused 1.P.S.Manohar Naidu, age 52 years, S/o P.N.Shadeva Naidu

2.P.S.Murali Naidu, 43 years, S/o P.N.Shadeva Naidu,

3.Damu Naidu, age 55 years, S/o Muthu Pullaiah Naidu,

4.Rajani,age 35 years, S/o Vajram, SC

5.Nataraj, age 45 years, S/o Chinnamunaswamy, SC

6.Ramu, age 32 years, S/o Narayanaiah, SC

7.Kannaiah,age 45 years, S/o Kuchaiah, SC

8.Sekhar,age 30 years, S/o Nimmali Chinnabba, SC

9.Govindaiah, age 47 years, S/o Bhupathaiah, SC

10.Jayaram,age 37 years, S/o Kuppaiah, SC

11.Ponnuswamy, age 49 years, S/o Bhupathaiah, SC 1 to 11 are residents of Pachigunta Village and H.Wada.

12.Basha @ Hasanjham, (Car driver of P.S.Manohar Naidu) age 36 years, S/o Asgar Ali, Avalakonda.

13.Nagaiaha Chetty, age 45 years, S/o Narayanaswamy (Died)

14.Moahn Babu, age 25 years, S/o Eswaraiah

15.Chandraiah, age 32 years, S/o Eswaraiah

16.Sankar Achari, age 30 years, S/o Subramanyam Achari

17.Narasimhulu Naidu, age 60 years, S/o Ramachandra Naidu

18.Ravi, age 30 years, S/o Seenaiah

19.Nagaiah, age 25 years, S/o Seenaiah

20.Kumar, age 32 years, S/o Late Munirathanam

21.Govindaswamy, age 31 years, S/o Kalaiah

22.Arunababu, age 37 years, S/o Kalaiah 19

23.Ashok, age 25 years, S/o Annamaiah 12 to 23 are resident of Pachigunta Village and H.Wada.

24.Sudhakar Reddy, Thimmareddypalle

25.Devasundram, G.D.Nellore H.Wada

26.Bujjamma, age 35 years, W/o Vadivalu,Mitta H.Wads, Pachigunta

27.Murugamma, age 51 years, W/o late Rajiah, Thumgundram H.Wada

28.Ramanamma, age 42 years, W/o Gurunadha Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

29.Saraswathi, age 40 years, W/o Damodara Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

30.Sulochana,age50years, W/o Narasimhulu Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

31.Rajamma, age 57 years, W/o late Chinnamuaswamy, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

32.Alimelu, age 25 years, W/o Govindaswamy, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

33.Kumari, age 50 years, W/o P.S.Manohar, Kamma, Pachigunta

34.Danamma, age 42 years, W/o Annamaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

35.Kalavathamma, age 40 years, W/o Annamaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

36.Hamsa, age 58 years, W/o Srinivasulu, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

37.Vadivelu, age 43 years, S/o Munaswamy, SC, Mitta H.W, Pachigunta

38.Thavamani, age 36 years, S/o Munaswamy, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

39.Rajani, age 29 years, S/o Late Munirathnam, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

40.Rajani, age 29 years, S/o Markondaiah, SC, Pachigunta, Mitta H.W.

41.Munaswamy, age 55 years, S/o Gutaiah, SC, pachigunta H.W.(Died)

42.Kumari, age 35 years, W/o Kannaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

43.Murugamma, age 45 years, W/o Irasaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W.

44.Lakshmaiah Naidu, age 54 years, S/o Ramachandra Naidu, Kamma, Pachigunta

45.Govindamma, age 47 years, D/o Dhoopathaiah, SC, Pachigunta H.W

46.Balaji, age 32 years, S/o Munaiah, SC, AAW, pachigunta. (Case against the accused A13, A38, A43, A48 Abated as they are died) 20

Nature of offence : Under section.147, 148, 341, 427 of I.P.C

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused A1, A2, A4 to A12, A14 to A33,

A35, A36, 38 to 42, and A44 to A48, are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under section.147, 148, 341, 427 of I.P.C., and for the same, the accused are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. There is no property in the case and hence no orders on property. The bail bonds of accused on record treated as the bail bonds secured U/Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C., to secure the appearance of accused before appellate Court in case of any appeal or petition against the

Judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for six months, thereafter the same shall stands cancelled.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

21

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, CHITTOOR.

PRESENT: SRI. V.NAGESWARA RAO NAIK, II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC/ Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

Wednesday, The Thirteenth (13th) day of December, 2017

C.C.No. 414 OF 2000

(Crime No.168/99 of Bangarupalem PS .)

Between :-

The State Rep. By Sub Inspector of police,

Bangarupalem Police Station. ...Complainant

And :-

M.Muneer, 27 years, S/o Abdul Azeez, Sri Raheem Compount, Budugutta Raod, Bangarupet, Kolar District, Driver of lorry KA-04-1908. ….Accused

This case coming for final hearing before me on 12.12.2017 in the presence A.Murali Mohan, Advocate for accused and Learned Assistant Public prosecutor for Complainant and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of all relevant records this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Bangarupalem Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence under section 304 (A), 338, 279, 337 f Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 130(1) r/w 177 IPC of M.V. Act in Crime No.168/1999 of Bangarupalem Police Station.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

The complaint received by defacto complainant LW.1 S.A.Gaffar, age 55 years, S/o. M.D.Hayath Saheb, is a resident of Thagguvaripalle Village of

Bangarupalyam Mandal. While so on 22.11.1999 at about 11.15 am. On 2

Bangarupalyam, Chittoor National Highway road near K.G.Satram the accused noted herein being the driver of lorry KA-04-1908 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner proceeding from Vellore to

Bangarupet empty lost control over the lorry and dashed against one opposite left side coming TATA SUMO KA-04-N-2990 and at the same time another lorry A.B.A.100 came behind the accused lorry, and hit to accused lorry, as a result M.B.Siva Kumar (LW.5), Showkath Ali (LW.9),

Bhanu Bi (LW.10), Amrita @ Jasmin (LW.11), Ismail (LW.6), Kiran (LW.7),

Payeesha (LW.8) and one S.Vaheed (Deceased) sustained simple and grievous injuries, out of them S.Vaheed died on the spot. Later LW.5

M.B.Siva Kumar moved to Govt. hospital, Chittoor and remaining injured shifted to CMC, hospital, Vellore for treatment, both vehicles got damaged. During the course of investigation on 25.11.1999 at 10.00 am the accused was arrested and sent for remand. The Medical Officers who treated the injured are opined that the injuries sustained by LWs 6 and 7 are simple in nature, and remaining sustained grievous injuries, LW.8

Payeesha did not take any treatment. After completion of entire investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3. This case has been taken on file U/Sec.304-A and 338 IPC and

Section 177 (21) & 146 r/w 186 of M.V Act and numbered as CC No.121 of 2000and accused was furnished with copies of necessary documents in compliance with Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of accusation for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A and 338 IPC and

Section 130 (1) r/w 177 of M.V Act was read over and explained to 3 accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12. The evidence of LW.2 payeesha, LW-10 S.Amritha @ Jasmine, LW-11 Babu,

LW-12-Mahaboob Khan, LW-13-M.B.Krishna Murthy, LW-14-B.Prakash, LW- 15-Dr.M.Krishnaiah, LW-16-Dr.Ranjith K.Moorthy, LW-17-Dr.Shiby Ninan,

LW-18-Dr.Rajive Marcose, LW-19-Dr.B.Sudhakar Chandran, LW-20-

Dr.J.V.Krishna Murthy, LW-21-B.R.N.Reddy, given up by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 was dispensed with as there was no incriminating material found against accused.

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

8. Now the point for determination is:- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence under section 304-(A), 337 & 338 of I.P.C and under Section 130 (1) r/w 177 of M.V Act. beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. Point:- To prove its case, the prosecution has examined defacto complainant S.A.Gaffar, who is LW1 as PW1 he deposed that the accident took place on 23.11.1999 at .K.G.Satram. While he was in his house he was informed that a lorry hit the jeep and caused accident through over phone, immediately they went to the scene by auto and found that the TATA Sumo was badly damaged. He came to know that the accused lorry came at a high speed and caused accident in a negligent manner. Later he gave complaint and police examined him and recorded statement. During cross examination he deposed that he was 4 not eye witness for the occurrence. He did not seen the accident.

Admittedly, the K.G.Satram road was down gradient towards eastern side from western side. At the time of their visit their jeep TATA Sumo was at the scene of offence towards left side of the road by facing towards southern side.

10. The prosecution has examined Syed Bakshu Saheb, who is

LW2 as PW2 Coming to the evidence of PW.2 he deposed that he know the deceased who is his relative. He came to know that the deceased died in a road accident.

11. The prosecution has examined M.B.Siva Kumar who is LW4 as PW3, has deposed that on 22.11.1999 at about 10.45 AM the deceased and LW.6 S.Kiran and others were travelling in a TATA Sumo bearing No.KA-04-N-2990 in order to go to Chittoor while they reached at

K.G.Satram a lorry bearing No.KA-04-1908 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligence manner and dashed their sumo. At the same time another lorry bearing inmates of the vehicle were sustained injuries in

S.Vaheed died on the spot due to grievous injuries. Then the injured shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor, later to CMC Vellore. During the course of cross-examination he deposed that the alleged accident incident was busy locality and vehicles plying regularly.

12. The prosecution has examined Syed Ismail who is LW5 as

PW4 has deposed that on 22.11.1999 at about 10.45 AM they started in a TATA sumo in order to go to Chittoor while they reached at K.G.Satram one lorry came with an high speed in an opposite direction and dashed against their TATA SUMo due to which the deceased sustained injuries.

The driver of the lorry was the responsible for the accident. During the 5 course of cross-examination he deposed that the scene of offence is a busy locality, but he did not know how the accident was occurred as he sat on the back side of sumo.

13. The prosecution has examined S.Showkath who is LW8 as

PW.5 has deposed that on 22.11.1999 at 10.45 AM while they started

Bangarupalyam to go to Chittoor in an TATA Sumo bearing No.KA-04-N- 2990 while they reached at K.G.Satram the crime vehicle bearing No.KA- 04-1908 came in opposite direction hit their vehicle due to which his son

S.Vaheed died on the spot and other inmates were sustained injuries.

That the driver of the lorry is responsible for this accident for his rash driving resulting which the deceased was died.

14. The prosecution has examined S.Bhanu Bee, who is LW9 as

PW.6 she deposed that on 22.11.1999 about 10.45 AM they were started from Bangarupalyam to go Chittoor in a TATA sumo bearing No.KA-04-N- 2990 while they reached at K.G.Satram the crime vehicle bearing No.KA- 04-1908 came in opposite direction hit their vehicle due to which her son

S.Vaheed died on the spot and others inmates PW.1, PW.3 to PW.5 sustained injuries. Then the injured were shifted to hospital for treatment. During the course of cross-examination she stated that she did not know lorry bearing number, she did not know the driver of the lorry and she cannot say in whose negligence the accident has occurred.

15. The prosecution has examined G.Chandaraiah Naidu, who is

LW3 as PW.7 he has deposed that on 22.11.1999 while he was going from Chittoor to Palamaner when they reached near K.G.Sathram area at about 11.00 AM at that time one lorry came by the side of and over take his lorry with a high speed and dashed against the opposite coming TATA 6

Sumo, as a result of the inmates of the sumo sustained injuries. During the course of cross-examination he deposed that he did not know lorry bearing registration number. The place of incident was a busy locality and it was National High way. He has not seen the accident directly and that on whose negligence the incident was happened.

16. The prosecution has examined S.Kiran, who is LW6 as PW.8 he has deposed that on 22.11.1999 PW.1 to PW.6 were going on TATA

Sumo bearing No.KA-04-N-2990, while they reached near K.G.Sathram, at that time one lorry came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner and dashed against their sumo, due to which one Vaheed died on the spot. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry. During the course of cross-examination he deposed that he do not remember whether the alleged accident was taken place due to rash and negligent of sumo driver. He did not know in whose negligence the accident was took place.

17. The prosecution has examined V.Bhaskar, who is LW22 as

PW.9 he has deposed that he was working as Sub-Inspector of Police,

Puttur PS. Previously he worked as SI of Police, Bangarupalyam while so on 22.11.1999 at about 1.00 PM he received a written complaint from

PW.1 and registered the crime under Ex.P.2. On the same day he visited the scene of offence situated at the Main Road of Bangarupalyam to

Chittoor near electrical sub station K.G.Sathram Village. At the scene of offence he found one TATA Sumo and lorry and another lorry was also got damaged. Due to which the deceased was died. During the course of investigation, he visited the Government Hospital, Chittoor there he examined PW.3 and he also visited the CMC Hospital, Vellore and 7 recorded his statement. Then he sent requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle and also he received the report of M.V.I and the postmortem certificate of Vaheed deceased. During the course of cross examination he deposed that the scene of offence there was a hotel, bus stop and electrical substation, but he has not examined any of the persons due to non available at the time of investigation there was no one present in the substation and MVI inspector not inspected the crime vehicle on the same day and he inspected the crime vehicle at police station. Electrical substation runs 24 hours but he did not examined any one of the person, at that time no one present in the substation.

18. The learned APP argued that the matter may be decide on merits. The learned counsel for Accused argued that the Accused was falsely implicated in this case and investigating officer not seized material documents pertaining to the crime vehicle and not inspected the vehicle at scene of offence.

19. Point:- Before appreciation, the above evidence on record it is for the prosecution to establish, that ingredients of the section 304-A of I.P.C and other offences under Acts.

(1) The death of the deceased.

(2) The death of the deceased, caused by the accused being the

driver of crime vehicle.

(3) That the Accused did the same by doing a rash or negligent

act of driving of the crime vehicle not amounting to culpable

homicide.

20. Evidence of P.W.1 who is junior paternal uncle of deceased

Vaheed, PW2 relative to the deceased, PW3 and PW4 are the co- passengers in the vehicle of deceased TATA Sumo, PW5 is the mother of 8 deceased. PW6 father of the deceased, PW6 independent witness who is lorry driver of bearing No.ABA-100, PW.7 brother of deceased, PW8 who is investigating officer, their evidence shows that the deceased Vaheed was died due to the rash and negligence driving of accused. The prosecution proved point No.1 that the death of the deceased Vaheed.

21. Coming to the identification of driver of crime vehicle as

Accused, as seen from the evidence of PW-1, he was not eye witness to the accident, he came to know by others, so his evidence no way helpful to the prosecution for the identification of the driver of crime vehicle.

PW-2 stated that he came to know that the deceased died in a road accident. His evidence also hearsay evidence, he was not eye witness to accident. So, his evidence also not helpful to the prosecution for identification of driver of crime vehicle. The evidence of PW-3 to PW5 are co-passenger in the TATA Sumo Vehicle but they did not know in whose rash and negligence the accident was occurred and that they did not see the driver of crime vehicle, so his evidence also not helpful to the prosecution case for identification of driver of crime vehicle and the prosecution did not examined inquestdars and medical doctors who issued wound certificate. except his present at the time of inquest so their evidence also not helpful to the prosecution case for identification of driver of crime vehicle. The investigation officer PW-9 not seized crime vehicle records and not examined owner of crime vehicle to prove that on the date of accident the accused was driver of crime vehicle also the crime vehicle bearing Number is involved in the alleged accident except saying vehicle bearing Number which on scene of offence, as none of the witnesses says that crime vehicle was dashed against TATA Sumo. More 9 over accused produced after 3 days from date of occurrence it would creating some doubt upon case of the prosecution to convict the accused. As per the evidence of PW8 that the owner of vehicle surrendered accused before the police station after lapse of three days, neither owner of vehicle examined nor produced vehicle documents and driving license of accused, hence the evidence of PW8 also not supported the case prosecution to prove the rash or negligence of

Accused. The evidence of PW1 to PW8 dent the case prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

22. As per evidence of prosecution, it is for the prosecution to establish that the accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and which resulted the accused and caused death of deceased.

As per above discussion, there is no absolute evidence to show that the

Accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, this court concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the both first and second ingredients of the section 304-A of I.P.C and Section 338 & 337 of I.P.C and under Section 130 (1) r/w 177 of M.V Act. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case and the accused is entitled for acquittal. This point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

23. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section.304-A, 338, 279, 337 I.P.C and under Section 130 (1) r/w 177 of M.V Act and for the same, the accused is acquitted

U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no property in the case and hence no orders on property. The bail bonds of accused on record treated as the bail bonds secured U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., to secure the appearance of 10 accused before the higher Court in case of any appeal or petition against the Judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for six months, thereafter the same shall stands cancelled.

Typed to the Personal-Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the13 th day of

December, 2017.

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of

Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

1. PW.1. S.A.Gaffar NIL

2. PW.2. Syed Bakshu Sahab

3. PW.3. M.B.Sivakumar

4. PW.4. Syed Ismail

5. PW.5. S.Showkath Ali

6. PW.6. S.Bhanu Bee

7. PW.7. G.Chandraiah Naiu

8. PW.8. S.Kiran

9. PW.9. V.Bhaskar

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION:

1. Ex.P-1 : Complaint giver to police Dt.22.11.1999 by PW.1

2. Ex.P-2 :First Information Report in Cr.No.168/1999

3. Ex.P-3 : Inquest Report

4. Ex.P-4 : MVI report

5. Ex.P-5 : PM report

6. Ex.P-6 :Wound certificate or PW.5

7. Ex.P-7 :Wound certificate of Jasmine

8. Ex.P-8 :Wound certificate of PW.8 11

9. Ex.P-7 :Wound certificate of PW.3

10. Ex.P-7 :Wound certificate of PW.6

11. Ex.P-7 :Wound certificate of Babu (LW.11)

12. Ex.P-7 :Wound certificate of PW.4

DEFENCE: - Nil-

Material Objects - NIL –

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of

Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

//True copy//

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor,

FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS FOR

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, CHITTOOR.

CALENDAR IN CC.NO.414/2000

Date of occurrence22.11.1999 Date of complaint22.11.1999 Date of taken on file17.05.2000 Date of commencement of trial07.05.2001 Date of closure of trial12.12.2017 Date of sentence or order13.12.2017

Name of the complainantThe State Rep. By Sub Inspector of police, Bangarupalem Police Station.

Name of the accusedM.Muneer, 27 years, S/o Abdul Azeez, Sri Raheem Compount, Budugutta Raod, Bangarupet, Kolar District,

Nature of offence : 304-A, 338, 279, 337 I.P.C and under Section 130 (1) r/w 177 of M.V Act

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section.304-A, 338, 279, 337 I.P.C and under

Section 130 (1) r/w 177 of M.V Act and for the same, the accused is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. There is no property in the case and hence no orders on property. The bail bonds of accused on record treated as the bail bonds secured U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., to secure the appearance of accused before the higher Court in case of any appeal or 13 petition against the Judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for six months, thereafter the same shall stands cancelled.

Sd/- V.Nageswara Rao Naik

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor. //True copy//

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, FAC/Judl, Magistrate of I Class of Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

1

1IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS 

FOR SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, CHITTOOR.

STC. NO:18/2016

D O C K E T O R D E R

Complainant is called absent. No representation. Since several adjournments.

There was no representation from complainant side. Continuation batta not paid

U/Sec. 235(2) CRP. For execution of NBW against the accused it seems the complainant has no interest to proceed with this case. In view of circumstance this court come to opinion that the complainant has no interested to proceed in this case and also execute NBW against accused. Hence complaint is dismissed for default.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

2

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS 

FOR SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, CHITTOOR.

CC. NO:79/2016

D O C K E T O R D E R

Defacto complainant and injured present. Accused present. Matter is settled

before the Lok Adalath. Accused is acquitted U/Sec. 320(8) CrPC for the offence

354, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class for Spl. Mobile Court, Chittoor.

2