Sri Y Gopala Krishna

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: ­ Sri Y.Gopala Krishna.,

V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May 2017.

Calendar Case No.689/2007

Between:­ State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Paravada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant

And

1. Challa Rama Krishna, S/o Laxmi Naidu, 34 Yrs, Turupu Kapu, D.No. 25­ 189, Peda Nadupuru, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Note: Case against A1 is abated as he died.

2. Duba Babu Rao, S/o Appalaswamy Naidu, 25 Yrs, turupu Kapu, D.No. 18­9­ 17, Peda Nadupuru, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 

3. Pudi Ramana, S/o Appala Naidu, 38 Yrs, Kapu, D.NO. 23­73­1, Pudimamba colony, B.C., Road, Kotta Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 

... Accused 

This case is coming before me on 28­04­2017 for trial in the presence of

A.P.P., for State and of Sri K.S.R.Murthy, Learned Counsel for A2 and A3 and, upon hearing on both sides and upon perusing the material on record, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.Sub Inspector of police, Parawada P.S., filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.27/2007 for an offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 of IPC.

2.Main case of prosecution, in brief, is that:

Prior to 06­02­2007, some unknown offender committed theft of 45 meters of aluminum alloy conductor wire from the work site of Pharmacity company, near E. Bonangi Village. On 06­02­2007, L.W.1(I.Hanimireddy, the then Asst. Manager of P.R, JNPC, Parawada) and workers found missing of aluminum conductor wire. On 07­02­2007, L.W.1(I. Hanimireddy) gave a report to police. 

Basing on report, PW.4(Ch. Thirupathi Rao, the then SI of Police,

Parawada P.S.) registered FIR in Cr.No.27/2007. Thereafter, he visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. He also examined witnesses and recorded their statements.

On 09­02­2007 at 10.00 a.m., P.W.4 arrested A1 to A3 at MRO office junction, Parawada, in the presence of mediators – Pws. 2 and 3(S.Masenu and 2 K.Akkanna) and seized 45 meters of aluminum conductor wire under cover of mediators report. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3.This case was taken on file U/Sec.379 and 411 of IPC and issued summons against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.A2 and A3 were examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C., and contents of charge sheet was read over to them, in Telugu, for which, they denied. Charge u/s.379 of Indian Penal Code and alternative offence u/s 411 of Indian Penal

Code have been framed and read over and explained the same to them in

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and

Exhibited P1 to P6.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A2 and A3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution, for which, they denied, and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard on both sides.

9.Now the points for determination are : 

1. Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against A2 and A3 of offence punishable under section 379 of IPC or not ?

2. Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against A2 and A3 of offence punishable under section 411 of IPC or not ?

Point No.1: 

Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against A2 and A3 of offence punishable under section 379 of IPC or not ?

10.As per version of prosecution, accused committed theft of 45 meters of aluminum conductor wire at work site of Ramky Pharmacity,

E.Bonangi, Parawada. 

11.To bring home the guilt of accused for an offence u/s 379 of IPC, the prosecution shall establish that A2 and A3 committed theft of 45 meters of aluminum conductor wire.

12.In order to prove the case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4. L.W.1[I.Hanimireddy, the then Asst. Manager, PR, JNPC,

Parawada, Ramky Pharmacity] gave a report. It is the version of prosecution, whereabouts of I.Hanimireddy [L.W.1] is not known. As such, his evidence was given up by APP. 

3

13.However, prosecution has examined P.W.1[B.Arjuna Rao, the then

Security Guard, Ramky Pharmacity]. According to prosecution, he knows theft of aluminum wire at work site of Ramky Pharmacity. It is his evidence that previously, he worked as Security guard in Ramky Pharmacity Limited in

E.Bonangi. Further, it is his evidence that he does not know about theft of aluminum wire in Ramky Pharmacity. Thus, he deviated from the case of prosecution. As such, learned APP treated him as hostile. However, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution. 

14.P.W.4(Ch.Thirupathi Rao, the then SI of Police, Parawada Police

Station] stated in his evidence that on 07­02­2007 at 1.00 p.m., basing on report of Hanimireddy(L.W.1), he registered FIR in Cr.No. 27/2007 and thereafter, he visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, examined witnesses and recorded their statements. 

15.It is important to note that no prosecution witness identified A2 and A3, as he witnessed A2 and A3, while they were committing theft of aluminum conductor wire at work site of Ramky Pharmacity.

16.It is the case of prosecution that when P.W.4 arrested the accused in the presence of mediators, accused confessed about commission of theft of aluminum conductor wire. It is well settled that confession before police officer is not admissible. Therefore, basing on confession, it cannot be held that accused committed theft.

17.Admittedly, P.W.1 who is former employee of Ramky Pharmacity has not supported the case of prosecution. Though, PW.1 has not supported the case of prosecution, the prosecution has not chosen to examine any of employees of Ramky Pharmacity to establish that theft was committed at work site of Ramky Pharmacity. However, there is no material on record to establish that aluminum conductor wire was committed at Ramky Pharmacity. 

18.On thorough verifying the record, I found that there is no material on record to connect the accused for an offence punishable U/Sec.379 of IPC.

Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, these two points answered.

Point No.2: 

Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against A2 and A3 of offence punishable under section 411 of IPC or not ?

19.It is the case of prosecution that when accused retained stolen aluminum conductor wire, dishonestly, and knowing­fully aware that it was stolen property, P.W.4 arrested them and seized aluminum conductor wire, in the presence of mediators under cover of mediators report.

20.In order to prove recovery of aluminum conductor wire from the possession of accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4.

4 According to prosecution, P.W.2(S.Masenu) and P.W.3(K.Appanna) acted as mediators and in their presence, P.W.4 (Ch.Thirupathi Rao, the then SI of

Parawada P.S.) arrested the accused and seized aluminum conductor wire under cover of mediators report.

21.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that on 09­02­2007, upon credible information, he along with his staff and mediators – Pws. 2 and 3 went to MRO office junction, Parawada and arrested A1 to A3 at bus stop and seized aluminum conductor wire, under cover of mediators report. Further, it is his evidence that on questioning, A1 to A3, they confessed theft of aluminum wire at Ramky Pharmacity. 

22.As seen from evidence of P.W.4, in the presence of mediators – Pw2 and P.W.3, he arrested the accused and seized aluminum conductor wire..

23.But, P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of prosecution.

However, they deposed in one voice that about 10 years ago, they went to police station on their personal work and at that time, police obtained their signatures on some papers, but, they do not know contents therein. The evidence of P.Ws2 and 3 create a strong suspicion on the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to their presence at the time of alleged arrest of accused and seizure aluminum conductor wire.

24.As per procedure laid down under Sec.100(4) of Cr.P.C., ''search and seizure shall be conducted in the presence of two independent and respectable local inhabitants.'' In the instant case, according to prosecution, accused was arrested and aluminum conductor wire was seized from the possession of A1 to A3 in the presence of mediators – Pws2 and 3. But, alleged mediators – Pws2 and 3 did not support the case prosecution by not deposing about arrest of A1 to A3 and seizure of aluminum conductor wire. The evidence of Pws2 and 3 create a strong doubt on the case of prosecution whether PW4 followed procedure laid down u/s 100(4) of Cr.P.C. and seized aluminum conductor wire from the possession of accused.

25.It is also mandatory procedure under Sec.100(5) and 100(7) of

Cr.P.C., that ''whenever any item or thing is seized from the culprit, searching officer shall prepare a list of seized property and deliver one copy to the arrested person.'' Whereas, in the instant case, neither mediators report nor evidence of searching officer (PW.4) disclose about preparation of list as to seized property and serving of copy of list to the accused. If really, aluminum conductor wire were seized from the possession of accused, nothing prevents PW.4 from preparing list and serve copy of list to the arrested person. Prosecution has not explained, why procedure under Sec.100 Cr.P.C., is not complied by PW4.

Therefore, it is also one of the strong circumstances to doubt the case of prosecution.

5

26.It may be noted here that no prosecution witness supported the evidence of P.W.4(Investigating Officer) with regard arrest of accused and seizure of aluminum conductor wire. Since PW4 is Investigating Officer, naturally, he supports the prosecution case and he has interest in get conviction of accused. In the absence of corroborative evidence from any independent witnesses, the sole uncorroborated testimony of investigating officer(P.W.4) cannot be used to establish the fact of receiving of alleged stolen property from the accused. In view of circumstances, and in view of evidence of

Pws2 and 3, it is not safe to rely on the sole evidence of Pw4 to convict the accused. However, the above circumstances and evidence of PWs2 and 3 create a strong doubt on the case of prosecution. Hence, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

27.To connect the alleged seized aluminum conductor wire to Ramky

Pharmacity, the prosecution relied on the confession of accused. It is well settled principle under Sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act, that ''confession

before police officer cannot be considered.'' Therefore, confession of accused can

not be considered. It may be noted here that similar items to aluminum conductor wire are available at anywhere. However, there is no material on record to connect the seized aluminum conductor wire to Ramky Pharmacity. It is one of strong circumstances to doubt the case of prosecution.

28.It is important to note that no alleged seized aluminum conductor wire is not produced before the court. It is the case of prosecution that conductor wire was misplaced in police station. Non producing alleged seized conductor wire before the court, creates a strong doubt on the case of prosecution as to seizure of conductor wire. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.

29.In the light of above facts and circumstances and aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

30.In the result, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for an offence punishable under Sec.379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced and marked before the court, no order is passed in that regard.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of May 2017. 

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle 6

Appendix of evidence //Witnesses examined //

Prosecution: Defence: None:

PW.1 : Boddeti Arjuna Rao PW.2: Surada Masenu PW.3: Kannuru Akkanna PW.4: Ch.Thirupati Rao, SI of Police // Exhibits marked for //

Prosecution: Defence: Nil Ex.P1: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.1 Ex.P2: Signature of P.W.2 on report Ex.P3: Report of Hanimi Reddi Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Rough sketch Ex.P6: Mediators report // Material Objects Marked// ­NIL­

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle 7

 CALENDER AND JUDGMENT.

DISTRICT: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ 

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.689/2007 Date of

OffenceFilingAppre-Released Commen-ClosureSentence hensionon bailcement ofof theor trialtrialOrder. 6-2-20077-2-079-2-07--15-12- 201625-4-173-5-2017

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY­­: On 7-10-2016 copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.Pc and on 29-11-2016 the accused were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.c. On 15-12-2016 PW1 was examined, on 30-3-2017 PW2 & PW.3 were examined, on 25-4-2017 PW4 was examined, and

Exs.P1 to P6 and the prosecution evidence is closed. On 27-4-2017 accused was examined under sec.313 Cr.P.C and heard arguments. On 3-5-2017 Judgment

pronounced.

Name of the complainant: State: Sub­Inspector of Police , Cr.No.27/2007 Parawada P.S Nameofthefather’s nameageReligioncallingVillage accused

1. Challa Rama Krishna, S/o Laxmi Naidu, 34 Yrs, Turupu Kapu, D.No. 25­ 189, Peda Nadupuru, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. Note: Case against A1 is abated as he died.

2. Duba Babu Rao, S/o Appalaswamy Naidu, 25 Yrs, turupu Kapu, D.No. 18­ 9­17, Peda Nadupuru, Pedagantyada Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 

3. Pudi Ramana, S/o Appala Naidu, 38 Yrs, Kapu, D.NO. 23­73­1, Pudimamba colony, B.C., Road, Kotta Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. 

Offence: under Sec.379 and 411 of IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for an offence punishable under Sec.379 and 411 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced and marked before the court, no order is passed in that regard.

V Metropolitan Magistrate Anakapalle

Copy Submitted to:

Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate­cum­

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna., V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Monday, this the 1st day of May 2017.

Calendar Case No.15/2015

Between:- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Anakapalle Rural Police Station.

... Complainant

And

Madagala Kondala Rao, S/o late Demudu, 48 Yrs, Kapu by caste, Driver of Lorry AP 31 TW 3546, r/o Desapatrunipalem village, Parawada Mandal.

… Accused

This case is coming on 27-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri B.V.Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of police, Anakapalle Rural Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.256/2014 for an offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

1.Main case of prosecution, in brief, is that :

On 21-12-2014 at 9.00 p.m., while Lanka Kondala Rao was proceeding from Marturu towards Thummapala, on foot, to attend natural calls, he reached near to Kalla shed of Alla Family members, near Marturu village. At that time, accused drove lorry bearing No. AP 31 TW 3546, in rash and negligent manner and at high speed and hit against him and ran over his head. Due to which, Kondala Rao died on the spot. Later, PW.1(B.Laxmi) gave a report to police. Basing on report of P.W.1, PW5(A.Koteswara Rao, the then SI of Anakapalle Rural P.S.) registered FIR in Cr.No.256/2014. Later, he visited scene of offence and observed the same and got prepared scene observation report. He also prepared rough sketch. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He held inquest over the dead body of Kondala Rao and got prepared inquest report. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2.This case was taken on file U/sec.304-A of IPC and issued summons against the accused.

3.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., and explained substance of charge sheet, for which, he denied. An accusation U/Sec.304-A of IPC has been made, and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and exhibited P1 to P12.

2

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is: Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused of offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC or not ?

9.As per version of prosecution, while Kondala Rao was proceeding on foot, he reached Kallam shed of Alla family members, near Marturu junction and at that time, accused drove crime lorry in rash and negligent manner and at high speed and hit against him and ran over him and due to which, he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.

10.To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 (B.Lakshmi) is aunt of deceased – Kondala Rao. She is hearsay to the accident. However, it is her evidence that about 2 years ago, Kondala Rao died in lorry accident. Further, it is her evidence that immediately on receipt of information about the accident, she rushed to scene of offence and there, she found dead body of Kondala Rao and crime lorry.

11. As per version of prosecution, PWs. 2 and 3(J.Eswara Rao and A.Sivajee) are eye witnesses to the accident. But, they did not support the case of prosecution. However, they stated in similar lines that they did not witness the accident said to have been occurred at Marturu junction. Thus, they deviated from the case of prosecution. As such, learned APP treated them as hostile and examined them, but nothing favourable answers elicited from them. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

12. According to prosecution, P.W.4(K.Krishna) acted as panchayatdar at the time of inquest. He also acted as mediator at the time of scene observation report. P.W.5(A.Koteswara Rao, the then SI of Police, Anakapalle Rural P.S.) is Investigating Officer. The evidence of Pws. 4 and 5 coupled with inquest report/Ex.P4 reveals that in the presence of panchayatdars, P.W.5 held inquest over the dead body of deceased – Kondala Rao and got prepared inquest report. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.4 that during inquest, they arrived at conclusion that Kondala Rao died due to injuries sustained in lorry accident.

13. As far as scene observation report is concerned, P.W.4 did not support the case of prosecution with regard to his presence at the time of scene observation report. As such, learned APP treated him as hostile and examined him, but nothing favourable answers elicited from him.

14. It is the evidence of P.W.5 that on 22-12-2014 at 8.00 a.m., basing on report of P.W.1, he registered FIR in Cr.No. 256/2014 and later, he visited scene of offence and observed same and got prepared scene observation report and also prepared rough sketch and that he also examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Further, it is his evidence that on 23-12-2014, he arrested the accused on his surrender and sent him to the court for remand and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

3

15. MVI report/Ex.P11 reveals that accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle.

16. PM report/Ex.P12 reveals that Kondala Rao would appear to have died of Cardio respiratory arrest secondary to crush injury to skull and brain tissue.

17. It is important to note that accused did not dispute with accident and death of Kondala Rao in that accident. But, he contended that he is noway concerned to this case and accident. Prosecution has examined Pws 2 and 3. But, they did not support the case of prosecution. However, the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 5 reveals that Kondala Rao died road in traffic accident. Hence, it is held that Kondala Rao died in road traffic accident.

18. As far as identification of accused is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that accused was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident. But, no prosecution witness identified the accused as he was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident. However, PW.5 stated in his evidence that he arrested the accused on his surrender. Except that, there is no material on record, how did P.W5 identify the accused as he was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident. Therefore, basing on evidence of P.W.5, accused cannot be tagged to this case. There is no material on record to connect the accused to the above accident. Hence, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish that accused was driver of crime lorry.

19.As far as rash or negligent driving is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime lorry. It is already stated above that the prosecution failed to establish that accused was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident. Since accused was not identified as driver of crime lorry, the question of rash or negligent driving would not arise.

20. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, accused is found not guilty for an offence punishable U/Sec.304- A of I.P.C. and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order is passed in that regard.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 1st day of May 2017.

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle 4

Appendix of evidence //Witnesses examined // Prosecution: Defence: None: PW.1:Bonda Laxmi PW.2: Jerripothula Eswara Rao PW.3: Appikonda Sivaji PW.4: Karanam Krishna PW.5: A.KOteswara Rao, SI of Police // Exhibits marked for // Prosecution:Defence: Nil Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 Ex.P4 : Inquest report Ex.P5 : Signature of P.W.4 on scene observation report Ex.P6 : Report of P.W.1 Ex.P7 : First Information Report Ex.P8 : Rough sketch Ex.P9 : Scene Observation report Ex.P10: 6 Photographs corresponding CD Ex.P11: MVI report Ex.P12: PM report

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle 5

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT.

DISTRICT: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ 

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.15/2015 Date of

OffenceFilingAppre-ReleaseCommen-ClosureSentence hensiod cement ofof theor non trialtrialOrder. bail 23-12---15-11- 21-12-201422-12-20141420163-4-20171-5-2017

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY­­: On 30-3-2016 case copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 7-9-2016 the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. On 15-11-2016 Pw1 was examined, on 15-11-2016 P.W.1 was examined, on 5-12-2016 P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined, on 13-12-2016 P.W.4 was examined, on 3-4-2017 P.W.5 was examined, and Exs.P1 to P12 are marked, and the prosecution evidence is closed. On 18-4-2017 Accused was examined U/sec.313

Cr.P.C. Heard. Judgment pronounced on 1-5-2017. Hence the delay.

Name of the complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police , Cr.No.256/2014 Anakapalle Rural Police station. Nameofthefather’s nameageReligioncallingVillage accused Madagala Kondala Rao, S/o late Demudu, 48 Yrs, Kapu by caste, Driver of Lorry AP 31 TW 3546, r/o Desapatrunipalem village, Parawada Mandal.

Offence: under Sec.304­A IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order passed in that regard.

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Copy Submitted to:

Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate­cum­

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

6

Accused is called Judgment is pronounced (VSJ). In the result the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C and thereby, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order passed in that regard.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT GAJUWAKA

Present : Sri Y.Gopala Krishna, L.L.B.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Anakapalle

(FAC) Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka

Tuesday, the 12 th day of December 2017

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.15/2017

Between:

Sk. Meera, S/o. (L) Madeena, Hindu, aged 60 years, residing at Door No. 65-6-694, Opp. Zinc gate, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam

... Plaintiff

And

1) Karri Appala Raju, S/o. Chitti Babu, aged 45 years, residing at Door NO. 14-32-39/1, Priyadarshini colony, 50thward, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

2) Karri Krishna Veni, W/o. Appala Raju, Hindu, aged 40 years, residing at Door No.14-32-39/1, Priyadarshini colony, 50th ward, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam.

…..defendants

This suit is coming on 8-12-2017 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt M.Pavani, Learned Counsel for plaintiff and Sri

D.Chandra Rao, K.V.Brahmam and Sri D.Venkata Ratnam, Learned counsels for defendants and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.1,84,000/- being the balance of principal and interest due on promissory note dt 9-10-2014 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum and for subsequent interest and for costs of the suit.

2)The main case of plaintiff, in brief, is that, 2 on 9-10-2014, the defendants borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of family expenses and executed promissory note with interest @ 24% p.a.

Subsequently, in spite of repeated demands made personally as well as through mediators, the defendants failed to repay the same.

Hence, present suit is filed for recovery of money on foot of promissory note.

3)On the other hand, the defendants resisted the claim of plaintiff by filing written statement. 1st Defendant filed written statement. 2nd adopted the written statement of 1st defendant. The defendants denied execution of promissory note and borrowing amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the plaintiff. The main case of defendants, in brief, is that, the defendants are having acquaintance with the plaintiff. There are no financial transaction between plaintiff and defendants. The defendants are having some financial transactions with one Sri

Ramana, who is resident of Malkapuram since long time.

Approximately, in the year 2013, due to their financial crisis, defendants intended to sell away their house property. On account of acquaintance with said Ramana, the defendants have intimated their intention to sell away their house property to introduce any party for the same. Accordingly, Ramana introduced the plaintiff as broker to sell away their house property. But, he has not introduced any 3rd party for purchasing the property of defendants. However, the defendants sold their house property. But, they could not clear their loan. As they have not cleared the loan amount borrowed from Ramana, he filed civil suit in Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam, on foot of promissory note.

3

In part of defending the said civil suit, the present plaintiff has introduced an advocate in Visakhapatnam city and suggested the defendants to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the advocate, towards part payment of fee. In fact, at that time, they have no money. On that, the plaintiff provided amount to the defendants. In turn, defendants paid same to their Advocate. Subsequently, defendants have paid amount of Rs.15,000/- on installment basis to the plaintiff herein. Later, civil suit filed by the Ramana was decreed against defendants herein.

Decree amount has been recovered from the salary of 1st defendant.

Subsequently, in the year 2015, the defendants required an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to discharge their liabilities and family expenses etc. At that time, the defendants requested the plaintiff to provide such amount from any 3rd party and subsequently, he obtained signatures of the defendants on 2 blank promissory notes and obtained the signature of 1st defendant on 2 blank cheques. But, he failed to provide any amount as required by the defendants. As such, the defendants requested the plaintiff to return their signed blank promissory notes and cheques. But, the plaintiff intentionally drag on the same without returning promissory notes and cheques.

After repeated demands and requests made by the defendants, the plaintiff has given calculation slip on a rule paper showing that total amount of Rs.1,22,000/- and demanded the defendants to pay the same and also threatened the defendants if they failed to pay that amount, he would file civil suit. In fact, the defendants did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff cheated the defendants by obtaining promissory notes and cheques as stated above. The plaintiff has no capacity to lend amount more than Rs. 20,000/- or Rs.30,000/-.

4

Calculation will be given by the plaintiff is filed with the present suit.

Hence, he prays the court to dismiss the suit.

4)On perusal of pleadings of both parties, this court framed following issues for trial:-

1)Whether the suit promissory note dt. 9-10-2014 is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not ?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled the suit amount as prayed for ?

3) To what relief ?

5)To meet ends of justice, 2nd issue is recasted as follows.

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

6)During course of trial, the plaintiff examined PWs1 and 2 and exhibited A1. The defendants have not adduced either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.

7)Heard arguments.

Issue No. 1

1)Whether the suit promissory note dt. 9-10-2014 is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not ?

8)It is the case of plaintiff that on 9-10-2014, the defendants jointly borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from him for their family expenses and executed promissory note with interest @ 24% p.a.

9)On the other hand, the defendants denied borrowing of amount and execution of promissory note and it is their case that the plaintiff made them to believe that he would arrange Rs.5,00,000/- of loan to them and obtained their blank signed promissory notes and cheques and thereby, he cheated them. Further, it is their case that no 5 consideration was passed under promissory note and hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.

10)In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1.

He reiterated the averments of plaint. He also examined T.Kumar as

PW2. He supported the case of plaintiff with regard to borrowing amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- and execution of promissory note by the defendants in favour of plaintiff herein. He claims that he acted as attestor to promissory note. The defendants cross examined Pws 1 and 2, except putting denial suggestions nothing was elicited to doubt their evidence. This court has not found any reason to discredit their evidence. Ex.A1 is suit promissory note. It reveals that defendants borrowed Rs.1,20,000/- from the plaintiff for family expenses. Thus, the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 corroborated with each other with regard to borrowing amount and execution of promissory note by the defendants.

However, the defendants also admitted their signatures on promissory note. In view of admission of defendants, presumption

U/Sec. 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act shall be drawn in favour of plaintiff. Sec. 118 (a) of Negotiable Instrument Act connotes that presumption as to passing of consideration under Negotiable instrument when instrument is admitted or proved. In the present case, the defendants admitted execution of promissory note / Ex.A1. So, presumption U/Sec. 118 (a) of Negotiable Instrument Act is drawn in favour of plaintiff with regard to passing of consideration under promissory note / Ex.A1. However, the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 proves passing of consideration under Ex.A1. Thus, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden. Now, the onus shifts on the defendants.

6

It is the case of defendants that the plaintiff cheated them by obtaining their blank signed promissory notes and cheques for arranging loan to them, but, he did not arrange the loan and return their instruments. Except making bald this allegation, the defendants have not placed any parole or documentary evidence in support of their case. If really, blank signed promissory notes and cheques are taken for arrangement of loan and later, loan is not arranged, no prudent person would keep silence without taking action by issuing legal notice or raising dispute before elders for getting back his instruments. At least, he would make complaint to the police for getting back instruments. In the present case, the defendants have not taken any above steps for getting back instruments. Non taking of any of above steps create a strong doubt on the case of defendants.

Hence, in view of circumstances, the case of defendants cannot be believed.

11)It is already stated above that the plaintiff established execution of promissory note and lending amount under promissory note / Ex.A1.

However, this court has not found any merits in the contentions of defendants.

12)In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and aforesaid discussion, it is held that the promissory note / Ex.A1 is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

Issue No.2

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for ?

13)In view of my answer on 1st issue, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

7

Issue No.3

To what relief ?

14.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.1,84,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty four thousand only) with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of decree and thereafter, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree to till the date of realization on the principal amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only).

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of December 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Anakapalli (FAC) Junior Civil Judge Gajuwaka

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Plaintiff For Defendants

PW1 : S.K.Meera None

PW2 : T.Kumar

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff

Ex.A-1/9-10-2014: Suit Promissory Note.

For Defendants

None

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Anakapalli (FAC) Junior Civil Judge Gajuwaka

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna., V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May 2017.

Calendar Case No.601/2009

Between:- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant

And

Tumpala Srinu, S/o Eswara Rao, age 25 Yrs, Kapu by caste, r/o Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Driver of Auto bearing No. AP 31 TT 3175. … Accused

This case is coming on 01-05-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri K.R.Ramesh Babu, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of police, Parawada Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.134/2009 for an offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.

1.Main case of prosecution, in brief, is that :

Pws.1 and 2(Dasaru Venkata Naidu @ Kanaka and Budda Jagga Rao) and L.W.1(P.Lakshmana Rao) and deceased – D.Vijay Kumar boarded an auto bearing No. AP 31 TT 3175, to go to Visakhapatnam. On the way, they reached near to GPR Gate, Lankalapalem and at that time, accused drove auto in rash and negligent manner and hit against road divider. Due to which, auto turned turtle. As a result, PWs. 1 and 2 and L.W.1(B.Lakshamana Rao) sustained severe injuries. D. Vijay Kumar sustained severe head injury and eye injury and cut his fingers and died while undergoing treatment. Later, L.W.1(P.Lakshmana Rao) gave a report to police. Basing on report of L.W.1(P.Lakshmana Rao), PW4(S.Appala Raju, the then Addl. SI of Parawada P.S.) registered FIR in Cr.No.134/2009. Later, he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He held inquest over the dead body of deceased and got prepared inquest report. On 24-5-2009, he arrested the accused and sent him to the court for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2.This case was taken on file U/sec.304-A of IPC and issued summons against the accused.

3.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., and explained substance of charge sheet, for which, he denied. An accusation U/Sec.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC have been made, and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2

5.During course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and exhibited P1 to P10.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is: Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused of offence punishable under section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC or not ?

9.As per version of prosecution, while PWs. 1 and 2, L.W.1(P.Lakshmana Rao) and deceased – D.Vijay Kumar were proceeding on auto bearing No. AP 31 TT 3175, to go to Visakhapatnam and on the way, they reached GPR gate, Lankalapalem and at that time, accused drove the said auto in rash and negligent manner and hit against road divider and due to which, PWs. 1 and 2 and L.W.1(P.Lakshmana Rao) sustained severe injuries and D.Vijay Kumar sustained severe head injury and died, subsequently.

10. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4.

11. As per version of prosecution, PWs. 1 & 2(D.Venkata Naidu and B.Jagga Rao) are injured cum eye witnesses to the accident. But, they did not support the case of prosecution. However, they stated in similar lines that they did not witness any accident. Their evidence does not reveal about sustaining of injuries in the accident. Thus, PWs. 1 and 2 deviated from the case of prosecution. As such, learned APP treated them as hostile and examined them, but nothing favourable answers elicited from them. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

12. According to prosecution, P.W.3(Sarathbabu) acted as panchayatdar at the time of inquest. P.W.4(S.Appala Raju, the then ASI of Police, Parawada P.S.) is Investigating Officer. The evidence of Pws. 3 and 4 coupled with inquest report reveals that in the presence of panchayatdars, P.W.4 held inquest over the dead body of deceased – Vijaya Kumar and got prepared inquest report. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.3 that during inquest, they arrived at conclusion that Vijaya Kumar died due to injuries sustained in an accident.

13. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that on 13-07-2009, basing on statement of P.Lakshmana Rao (L.W.1), he registered FIR in Cr.No.134/2009 and later, he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and he also examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Further, it is his evidence that on 24-07-2009, he arrested the accused on his surrender and sent him to the court for remand and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

14. MVI report/Ex.P7 reveals that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of crime vehicle.

15. Wound certificate of P.Lakshmana Rao(L.W.1)/Ex.P8 reveals that Lakshmana Rao sustained one simple injury and one grievous injury.

16. Wound certificate of P.W.1/Ex.P9 reveals that P.W.1 sustained three simple injuries.

3

17. Attested copy of PM report/Ex.P10 reveals that Vijay Kumar would appear to have died of injury to brain due to head injury.

18. It is important to note that accused did not dispute with accident and death of Vijaya Kumar and sustaining injuries by PWs.1 and 2 and L.W.1(P.Lakshmana Rao) in that accident. But, he contended that he is noway concerned to this case and accident. Prosecution examined eye witnesses cum injured i.e., PWs. 1 and 2, but they did not support the case of prosecution. However, the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4 and Exs.P1 to P10 reveals that Vijay Kumar died in road traffic accident.

19.It may be noted here that no prosecution identified the accused as he was driver of crime vehicle and committed the accident. However, there is no material on record to connect the accused to this case. Since accused was not identified as driver of crime auto, the question of rash or negligent driving do not arise.

20. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for an offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 338 and 337 of I.P.C. and thereby, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order is passed in that regard.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 3rd day of May 2017. Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle Appendix of evidence //Witnesses examined // Prosecution: Defence: None: PW.1:Dasari Venkata Naidu @ Kanaka PW.2: Budda Jagga Rao PW.3: Katumala Sarat Babu PW.4: S.Appala Raju, ASI of Police, Parawada // Exhibits marked for // Prosecution:Defence: Nil Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C., sttement of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C., sttement of P.W.2 Ex.P3 : Carbon copy of Inquest report Ex.P4 : Statement of Lakshmana Rao (L.W.1) Ex.P5 : First Information report Ex.P6 : Rough sketch Ex.P7 : MVI report Ex.P8: wound certificate of P. Lakshmana Rao(L.W.1) Ex.P9: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P10: attested copy of PM report Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle 4

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT.

DISTRICT: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ 

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.601/2009 Date of

OffenceFilingAppre-ReleaseCommen-ClosureSentence hensiod cement ofof theor non trialtrialOrder. bail --24-10- 12-7-200913-7-200924-7-09201627-4-201703-05-2017

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY­­: On 24-3-2016 case copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 5-8-2016 the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. On 24-10-2016 Pw1 was examined, on 18-11-2016 P.W.2 was examined, on 3-4-2017 P.W.3 was examined, on 27-4-2017 P.W.4 was examined, and Exs.P1 to P10 are marked, and the prosecution evidence is closed. On 28-4-2017

Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. Heard. Judgment pronounced on 03-05- 2017. Hence the delay.

Name of the complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police , Cr.No.134/2009 Parawada Police station. Nameofthefather’s nameageReligioncallingVillage accused Tumpala Srinu, S/o Eswara Rao, age 25 Yrs, Kapu by caste, r/o Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, Driver of Auto bearing No. AP 31 TT 3175.

Offence: under Sec.304­A, 338 and 337 IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 338 and 337 of I.P.C and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order passed in that regard.

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Copy Submitted to:

Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate­cum­

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ANAKAPALLE

Present: - Sri Y.Gopala Krishna., V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle.

Wednesday, this the 3rd day of May 2017.

Calendar Case No.158/2014

Between:- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Parawada Police Station, Visakhapatnam City.

... Complainant

And

Sirugurisetti Govinda, S/o Nagaraju, age 26 years, Kapu by caste, r/o Allikanudupalem Village, Oderu Panchayat, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Driver of Lorry bearing regd. No. AP 35 U 9247.

… Accused

This case is coming on 01-05-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri B.S.V.Rajgopal, Learned Counsel for the accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Sub Inspector of police, Parawada Police Station filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.11/2014 for an offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

1.Main case of prosecution, in brief, is that :

On 27-01-2014 at 9.25 P.M., accused being driver of lorry bearing No. AP 35 0924, stopped his lorry in middle of the road, at Jajulavanipalem, negligently, without taking precautions and parking lights. At that time, S.Raghuram was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No. AP 31 BX 5402 and hit against back side portion of lorry, in the darkness. Due to which, he sustained severe head injury and died on the spot. Later, PW.1(V.Gouri Prasad) gave a report to police. Basing on report of P.W.1, PW3(K.Chandra Sekhar, the then ASI of Parawada P.S.) registered FIR in Cr.No. 11/2014. Later, he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. He also held inquest over the dead body of Raghuram and got prepared inquest report. On 30-1-2014, he arrested the accused on his surrender and sent him to the court for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

2.This case was taken on file U/sec.304-A of IPC and issued summons against the accused.

3.On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.The accused was examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C., and explained substance of charge sheet, for which, he denied. An accusation U/Sec.304-A of IPC has been made, and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and exhibited P1 to P7.

2

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is: Whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the accused of offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC or not ?

9.As per version of prosecution, accused stopped crime lorry in the middle of the road, at Jajulavanipalem, without taking any precautions and put on parking lights, in the darkness and in the mean time, S.Raghuram was proceeding on motorcycle and hit against back side portion of lorry, due to which, he sustained severe head injury and died on the spot

10.To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3. It is the evidence of P.W.1(V.Gowri Prasad) that the deceased S.Raghuram was his colleague and that he(S.Raghuram) died in lorry accident at Jajulavanipalem. Further, it is his evidence that immediately after receipt of accident, he rushed to scene of offence and found dead body of Raghuram lying on road with injuries and he also saw crime lorry and vehicle of Raghuram.

11.As per version of prosecution, P.W.2(G.Srinivas) acted as panchayatdar at the time of inquest. P.W.3(A.Chandra Sekhar, the then ASI of Police, Parawada P.S.) is Investigating Officer. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 coupled with inquest report/Ex.P2 reveals that in the presence of panchayatdars, P.W.3 held inquest over the dead body of deceased – S.Raghuram and got prepared inquest report. Further, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that during inquest, they arrived at conclusion that S.Raghuram died due to injuries sustained in accident.

12. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that on 28-01-2014, basing on report of P.W.1, he registered FIR in Cr.No.11/2014 and later, he visited scene of offence and prepared rough sketch and also he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Further, it is his evidence that on 30-01-2014, he arrested the accused on his surrender and sent him to the court for remand and that after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

13. MVI report/Ex.P6 reveals that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defect of crime vehicle.

14.PM report/Ex.P7 reveals that Raghuram would appear to have died of cardio respiratory arrest secondary to head injury with fracture of frontal bone of skull with a large sub-dural hemorrhage.

15. It is important to note that accused did not dispute with accident and death of S.Raghuram in that accident. But, he contended that he is noway concerned to this case and accident. Admittedly, prosecution failed to examine eye witness to the accident. However, the evidence of prosecution reveals that Raghuram died in road traffic accident.

16.It may be noted here that no prosecution witness identified the accused as he was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident. However, P.W.3 stated in his evidence that he arrested the accused on his surrender and that there is no 3 material on record how did PW.3 identify the accused as he was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident.

17.As far as rash or negligent driving is concerned, it is already stated above that the prosecution failed to establish that accused was driver of crime lorry and committed the accident. Since accused was not identified as driver of crime lorry, the question of rash or negligent driving do not arise.

18. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances and aforesaid discussion, it is held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for an offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C. and thereby, he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order is passed in that regard.

Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 3rd day of May 2017.

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Appendix of evidence //Witnesses examined // Prosecution: Defence: None: PW.1:Vilisetti Gouri Prasad PW.2: Gannamani Srinivas PW.3: K.Chandra Sekhar, Addl. SI of Police // Exhibits marked for // Prosecution:Defence: Nil Ex.P1 : Report Ex.P2 : Inquest Report Ex.P3 : First Information Report Ex.P4 : Rough sketch Ex.P5 : Scene observation report Ex.P6 : MVI report Ex.P7: PM report

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle 4

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT.

DISTRICT: Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ­CUM­ 

V METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ANAKAPALLE

C.C.No.158/2014 Date of

OffenceFilingAppre-ReleaseCommen-ClosureSentence hensiod cement ofof theor non trialtrialOrder. bail -- 27-1-201428-1-201430-1-1417-1-201725-4-201703-5-2017

EXPLANATION FOR DELAY­­: On 14-9-2015 case copies of documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 24-10-2016 the accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. On 17-1-2017 Pw1 was examined, on 20-4-2017 P.W.2 was examined, and Exs.P1 & P2 are marked, and the prosecution evidence is closed.

On 26-4-2017 Accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. Heard. Judgment pronounced on 03-05-2017. Hence the delay.

Name of the complainant: State: Sub Inspector of Police , Cr.No.11/2014 Parawada Police station. Nameofthefather’s nameageReligioncallingVillage accused Sirugurisetti Govinda, S/o Nagaraju, age 26 years, Kapu by caste, r/o Allikanudupalem Village, Oderu Panchayat, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. Driver of Lorry bearing regd. No. AP 35 U 9247.

Offence: under Sec.304­A IPC

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of I.P.C and he is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after six months. Since no property produced and marked before the court, no order passed in that regard.

Sd/ Y.Gopalakrishna V Metropolitan Magistrate, Anakapalle

Copy Submitted to:

Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate­cum­

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Visakhapatnam.