Sri.Y.Nagaraja, Junior civil judge

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALYANDURG.

Present: Sri Y.Nagaraja Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Tuesday, the 18th day of April, 2017

CALENDER CASE No.30 of 2016

Between:-

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg Town Police Station.

.... Complainant.

Vs

1. Vadde Babu, aged 23 years, S/o V.Hanumantharayudu

2. Boya Chitrappa, aged 27 years, S/o B.Eswarappa,

Both are of Idukallu village, Setturu Mandal. (Drivers of auto bearing registration No.AP02-X-5422). … Accused

This case came on 17-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G.Yerriswamy, Advocate

for accused No.1 and accused No.2 in person and the matter having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg Town Police Station filed charge sheet in

Crime No.148 of 2015 for the offences U/s. 337, 304-A IPC and Sec.181, 190 (ii), 134 (1)

(a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, on 21-12-2015 morning

K.Anitha along with deceased K.Marenna and other labours i.e., V.Hanumankka,

Hanumantharayudu, V.Yerriswamy and Pennakka of Idukallu village left from their village boarded in the auto of accused No.1 bearing registration No.AP02-X-5422 and went to

Mallapuram village of Kalyandurg Mandal for coolie work in mango garden. After completion of work evening at about 3-00 p.m., they left from Mallapuram village on the same auto and proceeding towards Idukallu village as accused No.1 being the driver of auto, at the same time accused No.2 argued with auto driver i.e., accused No.1 he stated that he will drive the auto and took steering of auto from accused No.1, then accused No.1 not allowed accused No.2 for drive and both are argued and drove the auto one by one in rash and negligent manner with high speed, as a result of which auto turned turtle on the road in front of model school on Kambadur – Kalyandurg by-pass road. In this road accident K.Marenna sustained heavy head injury and died on the spot.

K.Anitha sustained injuries on her left hand. V.Hanumakka, V.Yerriswamy and Pennakka sustained abrasions on their persons. Accused No.1 also sustained heavy injuries. After some time deceased K.Marenna and injured persons were shifted from scene of offence 2 to Community Health Centre, Kalyandurg in 108 ambulance and got admitted. This road accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused No.1 and 2 and caused death to deceased K.Marenna.

On 21-12-2015 at 7-30 p.m., basing on the complaint of K.Anitha, C.Sankar

Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.148/2015 U/s 337, 304-A IPC of Kalyandurg Town Police station and investigated this matter.

During the course of investigation, Sub-Inspector of Police secured the presence of K.Anitha, K.Nagaraju, K.Chandra, K.Rathnamma and K.Ramanjineyulu and inquest panchayatdars H.Ramanjineyulu, G.Yerriswamy and T.Bhaskar and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased K.Marenna on 22-12-2015 from 7-30 a.m., to 10-30 a.m., and sent the dead body for autopsy. Further examined V.Hanumakka,

Hanumantharayudu, V.Yerriswamy and Pennakka and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

On 26-12-2015 Sub-Inspector of Police served Sec. 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused No.1 and 2 with instruction to appear before the court after receipt of summons.

The accused No.1 and 2 were not possessed driving licence. Hence

Sub-Inspector of Police added the Sec.181 of Motor Vehicle Act added. The crime auto not got insured with any company, hence, the sections 190 (ii) of Motor Vehicle Act added. Sub-Inspector of Police further added that accused did not inform road accident to concerned officers, hence Sec.134(1) (a)(b) of Motor Vehicle Act added.

Dr.G.Ranganth who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

K.Marenna, issued post mortem certificate opined that the deceased K.Marenna would appear to have died due to head injury leading to Sub-Dural Hemorrhage. Further examined V.Hanumakka, Hanumantharayudu, V.Yerriswamy and Pennakka and issued wound certificates of V.Hanumakka, Hanumantharayudu and Pennakka and opined that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature.

Ravi Sankar Naik/Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime auto and issued report stating that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Hence the charge.

3

3. On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance of the offence U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act against accused No.1 and 2.

4. On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, the copies of case documents have been furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. by putting the substance of alleged accusation for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a)

(b) of Motor Vehicle Act read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the said offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to 6 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.7.

PW.1 is defacto complainant and wife of deceased. PW.2 to 4 and 6 are eye witnesses and injured persons. PW.5 is independent inquest panchayatdar.

Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on statement. Ex.P.2 to P.5 and P.7 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 to 4 and PW.6, Ex.P.6 is signature of PW.5 on inquest report dated 22-12-2015.

7. Since there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused No.1 and 2 U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

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

9. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point:-

PW.1 is defacto complainant and wife of deceased K.Marenna, she deposed that about 1 ½ year back herself, her husband Marenna and their villagers were went to coolie work in an auto to Mallapuram village. After completion of coolie work while they were returning from Mallapuram to go to their Idukallu village, when they reached near school situated on Kambadur road the auto turned turtle. As a result all passengers were fell down. She sustained bleeding injury due to broken of her bangles and dumb injury on her left side ribs due to pressing of iron rod and she lost conscious. She regained conscious at hospital. She did not observe whether other inmates of the auto were sustained injuries or not as she lost conscious immediately after receiving injuries.

4

After regaining conscious she came to know that her husband was died in the said incident. She did not observe who was driver of auto at the time of incident. She does not know whether accused Nos.1 and 2 were driving the said auto at the time of incident. She cannot say at whose rash and negligent act the said incident took place.

She never gave report against accused. Police obtained her signature on some written papers at hospital, but she does not know its contents. Ex.P.1 is her signature on statement. PW.1 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

11. PW.2 is eye witness and injured, she deposed that about 1 ½ year back herself, her husband Hanumantharayudu, V.Yerriswamy, Pennakka, PW.1 and her husband Marenna/deceased were went to coolie work in an auto to Mallapuram village.

After completion of coolie work while they were returning from Mallapuram at 3-00 p.m, to go to their Idukallu village, when they reached near bye pass road the auto turned turtle. As a result all passengers were fell down. She sustained dumb injuries and some passengers were sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately after the incident she was shifted to hospital. She does not know whether anybody died in the said incident. She did not observe who was driver of auto at the time of incident. She does not know whether accused Nos.1 and 2 were driving the said auto at the time of incident. She cannot say at whose rash and negligent act the said incident took place.

PW.2 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

12. PW.3 is eye witness and injured, he deposed that he boarded an auto about 9 months back at Batwanipalli village to attend coolie work. After crossing Batwanipalli village what happened he does not know, but he sustained dumb injuries on his right elbow and right side ribs. He does not know whether other inmates sustained injuries or not. He does not know at whose rash and negligent act the said incident took place.

PW.3 turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

13. PW.4 is eye witness and injured, he deposed that he boarded an auto about 3 months back at Batwanipalli village to attend coolie work. After crossing Batwanipalli village the said auto met with accident. He sustained injury on his right knee. He did not witness whether other inmates sustained injuries or not. Immediately after incident he went to the government hospital through ambulance. He does not know at whose rash and negligent act the said incident took place. PW.4 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

5

14. PW.5 is inquest panchayatdar, he deposed that he does not know deceased

K.Marenna. He does not know reason for his death. He was not present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of deceased K.Marenna. The signature on inquest report dated 22-12-2015 is that of him, but he does not know its contents. Ex.P.6 is signature on inquest report dated 22-12-2015. PW.5 turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

15. PW.6 is eye witness and injured, she deposed that about 1 ½ year back while she was going to her village she found that one auto was turtle, but she did not go to the said place. She does not know whether anybody sustained injuries in the said incident. She does not know at whose rash and negligent act the incident took place.

Pw.6 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution

16. After examination of PWs.1 to 6, as they did not state any incriminating material against the accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., K.Nagaraju, K.Chandra, K.Rathnamma, K.Ramanjineyulu,

H.Ramanjineyulu, G.Yerriswamy, Dr.G.Ranganth, Ravisankar Naik/Assistant Motor Vehicle

Inspector and C.Sankar Reddy/Sub-Inspector of Police (LWs.2 to 5, 10 and 11, 13 to 15).

Since there was no incriminating material against the accused No.1 and 2, examination

U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

17. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, their evidence is not to the effect that on 21-12-2015 at about accused No.1 and 2 being the drivers of auto bearing

No.AP02-X-5422, drove the auto one by one in a rash and negligent manner with high speed as a result auto turn turtled on the road in front of model school on Kambadur –

Kalyandurg by-pass road. As a result the deceased K.Marenna sustained severe head injury and died on the spot and PWs.1 to 4 and 6 were sustained injuries. PW.1 being a defacto complainant/ injured and wife of deceased did not state any incriminating material against accused except admitting his signature on report which is marked as

Ex.P.1. Further PW.1 to 4 and 6 turned hostile and stated against their previous statements given U/s.161 Cr.P.C which are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.5 and P.7. PW.5 being an inquest panchayatdar also turned hostile except admitting his signature on inquest report dated 22-12-2015 and the same marked as Ex.P.6. Though Learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs.1 to 6 nothing was elicited in support of case of prosecution. Further there is no evidence to establish the guilt against accused No.1 and 2 for the offences U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act. As there is no incriminating material against the accused No.1 and 2 to prove their rash and negligent act in causing death of K.Marenna and injuries to PW.1 to 4 and 6 this court is of the 6 considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused

No.1 and 2 for the offences U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of

Motor Vehicle Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

18. In the result, accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty for the offences U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution Defence PW.1: K.Anitha None PW.2: B.Hanumakka PW.3: Hanumantharayudu PW.4: Yerriswamy PW.5: P.Bhaskar PW.6: Pennakka Exhibits marked for Prosecution. Defence Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report. –Nil- Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6 is signature of PW.5 on inquest report dated 22-12-2015. Ex.P.7 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

7

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg. Date of Explanation of delay and OffenceReportApprehensiReleased CommenceClose of Sentence Remarks on of on bail-ment of trial Accusedtrial 12345678 21-12-1521-12-1526-12-1526-12-1510-4-1717-4-1718-4-17 No delay

Judgment in C.C. No.30/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Complainant:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalyandurg Town Police Station.

Crime No.148/2015

SNo Name of the AgeFather’s NameReligionCallingResidenceTaluk Accused

1.Vadde Babu23 V.Hanumantha HinduDriverIdukalluSettur yearsrayudu

2.Boya 27 B.EswarappaHinduDriverIdukalluSettur Chitrappayears

Offence:- U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act. Finding :- Found not guilty Sentence or Order : -

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C and U/s 181, 190, 134 (1) (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec.

437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Copy submitted to: 1) The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.

2) The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur.

Dis.No. Dt.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

8 9

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALYANDURG.

Present: Sri Y.Nagaraja Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Friday, the 21st day of April, 2017

CALENDER CASE No.263 of 2014

Between:-

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluguppa Police Station.

.... Complainant.

Vs

Mandula Lakshminarayana, aged 42 years, S/o Late M.Motanna, Atmakur Village and mandal. Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP02-AV-8727. … Accused

This case came on 19-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri B.Ravikumar, Advocate

for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluguppa Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.111 of 2014 for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, the deceased K.Rammohan

Reddy has a tractor bearing No.AP02-U-5601. A.Shankarreddy is a land lord and he is having Ac.70-00 cents agriculture field in Konampalli village fields. About 4 days ago to 28-8-2014, A.Shankarreddy made phone call to K.Raghava and asked him to come to his field along with his tractor to till the field. On that on 26-8-2014 K.Raghava and

H.Suresh along with tractor bearing No.AP02-M-0900 went to the paddy field of

A.Shankarrededy. K.Raghava hire of the tractor fixed at Rs.800/- per hour and on the same day while K.Raghava and H.Suresh were tilling the field, the said tractor struck in the said filed. Though K.Raghava and H.Suresh tried a lot to get it out, but it was not come. On the same day evening K.Raghava went to Jeedipalli village and met deceased

K.Ramamohan Reddy and after informing about the matter and requested to come to the said filed along with his tractor, for which deceased K.Ramamohan Reddy accepted that he would come in the morning.

On 27-8-2014 at 8-00 a.m., K.Raghava and H.Suresh and deceased

K.Ramamohan Reddy went to the field of A.Shankarreddy by taking the tractor bearing

No.AP02-U-5601 of deceased A.Shankarreddy. They tied a rope to the tractor of

K.Raghava and while pulling it with the tractor of deceased K.Ramamohan Reddy and in the meantime the tractor belongs to the deceased K.Ramamohanreddy was also struck 2 in the mud. Though K.Raghava, H.Suresh and deceased K.Ramamohan reddy tried to take out both tractors, but it were not come. Then they passed on the same to

A.Shankarreddy, for which he told that he would send his tractor bearing No.AP02-AV- 8727 (crime vehicle) tomorrow to take out two tractors which were struck in the mud.

While so on 28-8-2014 at 7-00 a.m., K.Raghava, G.Eswaraiah and H.Suresh, deceased K.Ramamohan reddy and accused being the driver of crime vehicle went to the paddy field of A.Shankarreddy. Accused drove the said tractor bearing No.AP02-AV- 8727 and at about 9-00 a.m. They tied a rope to the tractor of deceased K.Ramamohan

Reddy and G.Eswaraiah drove the tractor. K.Raghava, H.Suresh and deceased

K.Ramamohan Reddy were pushing the tractor tyres with the help of logs and in the meantime the accused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the said tractor turned turtle towards right side of the field on the deceased

K.Ramamohanreddy and he died on the spot. K.Raghava informed the same to K.Triveni over phone. On that K.Triveni, K.Govindareddy and K.Eswaramma rushed to the spot and they all took out dead body of the deceased K.Ramamohan Reddy from the mud and found the deceased K.Ramamohandreddy sustained contusions on right side of armpit, left cheek, right side of hip and left knee backside. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused.

K.Triveni gave report in Beluguppa Police Station, K.Lakshminarayana/Head constable registered a case in Crime No.111/2014 U/s 304-A IPC of Beluguppa police station and took up investigation in this case.

During the course of investigation, Head constable held inquest over the dead body of deceased K.Ramamohan reddy at the scene of offence on 28-8-2014 from 12-00 noon to 2-30 p.m., at the scene of offence in the presence of K.Triveni,

K.Govindareddy, K.Eswaramma, K.Raghava, G.Eswaraiah, H.Suresh, B.Sunitha and

K.Venkatanaidu and sent the dead body for autopsy and report. During the course of inquest, Head constable examined K.Triveni, K.Govindareddy, K.Eswaramma,

K.Raghava, G.Eswaraiah examined and recorded their statements. After the inquest

Head constable examined A.Shankarreddy and recorded his statement.

Sub-Inspector of Police took up further investigation, verified investigation of

Head constable and found it is on correct lines.

3

On 2-9-2014 at 10-00 a.m., accused voluntarily came to Beluguppa Police

Station and admitted the commission of offence, Sub-Inspector of Police thoroughly interrogated and confirmed him as accused, arrested him at Beluguppa Police Station itself on the same day at 10-30 a.m., released him on bail.

Dr.G.Ranganath conducted autopsy over dead body of deceased

K.Ramamohanreddy and issued post mortem examination report opined that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest, secondary to viscera and injury to lungs.

D.Sreenivasulu/Motor Vehicle Inspector examined the crime vehicle driven by the accused opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.

The crime vehicle has valid insurance coverage and the accused has valid driving licence. Hence the charge.

3. On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance of the offence

U/s. 304-A I.P.C.

4. On appearance of accused, the copies of case documents have been furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. by putting the substance of alleged accusation for the offence U/s. 304-A I.P.C., read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the said offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

PW.1 is defacto complainant and wife of deceased K.Ramamohan Reddy. PW.2 is independent eye witness. PW.3 is independent inquest panchayatdar.

Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report dated 28-8-2014. Ex.P.2 and P.3 are Sec.161

Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 and 2, Ex.P.4 is signature of PW.3 on inquest report dated 28- 8-2014.

7. Since there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

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

9. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against accused for the offence U/s 304-A I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?

4

10.Point:-

PW.1 is defacto complainant/ wife of deceased K.Ramamohan Reddy, she deposed that her marriage with deceased was performed in the year 2002. During their wed lock they blessed with one son and one daughter. They are having landed property and they raised paddy crop. At present her husband Ram mohan reddy is no more. He died in a tractor accident about 3 years back took place at jeedipalli village. She does not know the manner of said accident. She did not witness the said incident. She came to know through some of her villager about the incident and then went to the scene of offence and found her husband died. She does not know at whose rash and negligent act the incident took place. She does not know whether she lodged report or not. The signature on report dated 28-8-2014 is that of her and she does not know its contents.

PW.1 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

11. PW.2 is independent eye witness, he turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

12. PW.3 is inquest panchayatdar, he deposed that no inquest was held over the dead body of K.Ram mohan Reddy in his presence. He put his signature on inquest report dated 28-8-2014 is that of him, but he does not know its contents. Ex.P.4 is his signature on the inquest report. PW.3 turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

13. After examination of PWs.1 to 3, as they did not state any incriminating material against the accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., K.Govindareddy, K.Eswaramma, K.Raghava, H.Suresh,

A.Shankarreddy, B.Sunitha, Dr.G.Ranganath, D.Sreenivasulu/Motor Vehicle Inspector,

K.Lakshminarayana/Head constable and Y.Nagamadhu/Sub-Inspector of Police (LWs.2 to 4, 6 to 8, 10 to 13). Since there was no incriminating material against the accused, examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

14. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, their evidence is not to the effect that on 28-8-2014 at 9-00 a.m., the accused drove the crime vehicle bearing No.AP02-AV- 8727 in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the said tractor turned turtle towards right side of the field on the deceased K.Rammohanreddy and he died on the spot. PW.1 being a defacto complainant/wife of deceased K.Rammohanreddy, did not state any incriminating material against accused except admitting his signature on report which is marked as Ex.P.1. Further PW.2 is independent eye witness did not state any incriminating material against accused. PW.3 being an inquest panchayatdar also 5 turned hostile except admitting his signature on inquest report dated 28-8-2014 and the same was marked as Ex.P.4. Though Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs.1 to 3 nothing was elicited in support of case of prosecution. As there is no incriminating material against the accused to prove his rash and negligent act in causing death of K.Rammohan Reddy this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution Defence PW.1: K.Triveni None PW.2: Eswaraiah PW.3: K.Venkatanaidu Exhibits marked for Prosecution. Defence Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report dated 28-8-2014. Nil Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 is signature of PW.3 on inquest report dated 28-8-2014.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg. Date of Explanation of delay and OffenceReportApprehensiReleased CommenceClose of Sentence Remarks on of on bail-ment of trial Accusedtrial 12345678 28-8-1428-8-142-9-142-9-1412-4-1719-4-1721-4-17 No delay

Judgment in C.C. No.263/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Complainant:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluguppa Town Police Station.

Crime No. 111 /2014

SNo Name of the AgeFather’s NameReligionCallingResidenceTaluk Accused

Mandula 42 Late HinduDriverAtmakurAtmakur LakshminarayayearsM.Motanna na

Offence:- U/s. 304-A IPC. Finding :- Found not guilty Sentence or Order : -

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Copy submitted to: 1) The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.

2) The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur.

Dis.No. Dt.

7

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALYANDURG.

Present: Sri Y.Nagaraja Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Monday, the 24th day of April, 2017

CALENDER CASE No.680 of 2016

Between:-

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluguppa Police Station.

.... Complainant.

Vs

Talari Thimmanna @ Thimmappa, age 23 years, S/o Lakshmanna, Duddekunta village, Beluguppa Mandal. Driver of auto bearing No.AP02-TC-6496, Aadhar No.624152417143. … Accused

This case came on 20-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri B.Ravikumar, Advocate

for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluguppa Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.123 of 2016 for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, on 19-11-2016 at evening the accused approached B.Vannurswamy and took his auto bearing No.AP02-TC-6496 and the accused along with T.Ramanjineyulu came to Beluguppa village to took T.Shireesha along with the deceased T.Akshaya to Duddekunta village. At about 4-45 p.m.,

T.Ramanjineyulu, T.Shireesha and the deceased T.Akshaya are boarded the auto. The accused being the driver of auto bearing No.AP02-TC-6496 left Beluguppa village to go to Duddekunta village. At about 5-00 p.m., after passing Beluguppa village on reaching near Mahalakshmi warehouse, on Beluguppa – Thagguparthi road, the accused observed that there was no sufficient diesel in the auto and he takes turn the auto near

Mahalakshmi warehouse, he drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner,

T.Ramanjineyulu along with the deceased T.Akshaya who were found in the auto fell on the road. As a result the deceased T.Akshaya sustained severe head injury above the left eye (crush injury) and died on the spot. T.Ramanjineyulu sustained simple swelling injuries. The same was witnessed by T.Shireesha, T.Ramanjineyulu, B.S.Venkatesulu and

B.Vannurswamy. Then T.Shireesha and T.Ramanjineyulu were shifted the dead body of the deceased T.Akshaya to Beluguppa village and kept the body in front of the house of

S.Venkatesulu. T.Ramanjineyulu informed the same to T.Lakshmanna through phone.

2

Further the accused informed the same to B.Vannurswamy through phone. Due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP02-TC-6496 by the accused the accident was occurred, as a result the deceased T.Akshaya sustained severe bleeding and crush injury on above the left side of the eye and died on the spot.

On the complaint of T.Shireesha, M.Nagaswamy/Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.123/2016 U/s 304-A IPC of Beluguppa police station on 19- 11-2016 at 7-00 p.m., and took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation on 20-11-2016, Sub-Inspector of Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased T.Akshaya in the presence of G.Yerriswamy, B.Anilamma and

B.Kanchiramudu and he examined T.Sireesha, T.Ramanjineyulu, S.Venkatesulu,

T.Lakshmanna, B.S.Venkatesulu, B.Vannurswamy and B.Vannurswamy and recorded their statements. Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence and seized the crime vehicle for the purpose of investigation.

On 25-11-2016 Sub-Inspector of Police examined B.Vannurswamy and he collected the crime auto records. On 25-11-2016 he served 41 (A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused with instruction to appear before the court after receipt of information.

T.Vijaya Kumari/Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ananthapuramu inspected the crime auto bearing No.AP02-TC-6496 and issued accident report. She remarked that

Registration certificate, insurance of the crime vehicle and driving licence of the driver not produced before her. She opined that the accused was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.

Dr.G.Ranganath, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

T.Akshaya and issued post mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased T.Akshaya died due to open fracture of skull resulting hit or passing of heavy object over like tyre.

Hence the charge.

3. On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance of the offence

U/s. 304-A I.P.C.

4. On appearance of accused, the copies of case documents have been furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. by putting the substance of alleged accusation for the offence U/s. 304-A I.P.C., read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the said offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.4.

PW.1 is defacto complainant/mother of deceased. PW.2 is eye witness/father of deceased. PW.3 is eye witness. PW.4 is independent inquest panchayatdar.

Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report dated 19-11-2016. Ex.P.2 to P.4 are Sec.161

Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 to 3, Ex.P.5 is signature of PW.4 on inquest report dated 20-11-2016.

7. Since there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

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

9. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against accused for the offence U/s 304-A I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point:-

PW.1 is defacto complainant/mother of deceased, she deposed that the deceased died about 6 months back in a road traffic accident caused by an auto. On the date of incident herself, her husband, her brother-in-law along with deceased T.Akshaya were going in an auto to Duddekunta village from Beluguppa. She was carrying her child

T.Akshaya. Near warehouse there was a wind, as a result her daughter T.Akshaya slipped from her hands and fell down under the auto tyre. As a result she sustained injuries and died on the spot. Accused was not responsible for the death of her daughter and he never drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. She never gave report against accused. Police obtained her signature on written papers, but she does not know its contents. Ex.P.1 is her signature on report

dated 19-11-2016. PW.1 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

11. PW.2 is eye witness/father of deceased, he deposed that on the date of incident himself, PW.1, his younger brother along with deceased T.Akshaya were going in an auto to Duddekunta village from Beluguppa. PW.1 was carrying her child T.Akshaya. When they reached near Mahalakshmi warehouse there was a wind, as a result she sustained injuries and died on the spot. Accused was not responsible for the death of her daughter and he never drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. PW.2 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

4

12. PW.3 is eye witness, he turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

13. PW.4 is inquest panchayatdar, he deposed that he was not present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of T.Akshaya on 20-11-2016. The signature on inquest report is that of him. He put the said signature at police station, but he does not know its contents. Ex.P.5 is his signature on the inquest report. PW.4 turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

14. After examination of PWs.1 to 4, as they did not state any incriminating material against the accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., S.Venkatesulu, T.Lakshmanna, B.Vannurswamy,

B.Vannurswamy, B.Anilamma, B.K.Ramudu, T.Vijayakumari, Dr.G.Ranganath and

M.Nagaswamy/Sub-Inspector of Police (LWs.3, 4, 7 and 9 to 13). Since there was no incriminating material against the accused, examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

15. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, their evidence is not to the effect that on 19-11-2016 at about 5-00 p.m., the accused being the driver of crime vehicle bearing

No.AP02-TC-6496 drove it with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which

PW.2 along with the deceased T.Akshaya were fell on the road. As a result the deceased

T.Akshaya sustained severe head injury above the left eye (crush injury) and died on the spot. PW.2 sustained simple swelling injuries. PW.1 being a defacto complainant/mother of deceased T.Akshaya, did not state any incriminating material against accused except admitting her signature on report dated 19-11-2016 which is marked as Ex.P.1. Further

PW.2 and 3 are independent eye witnesses, they did not state any incriminating material against accused. PW.4 being an inquest panchayatdar also turned hostile except admitting his signature on inquest report dated 20-11-2016 and the same was marked as Ex.P.5. Though Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs.1 to 4 nothing was elicited in support of case of prosecution. As there is no incriminating material against the accused to prove his rash and negligent act in causing death of

T.Akshaya this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

5

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 24th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution Defence PW.1: T.Sireesha None PW.2: T.Ramanjineyulu PW.3: B.S.Venkatesulu PW.4: G.Yerriswamy Exhibits marked for Prosecution. Defence Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report dated 19-11-2016. Nil Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5 is signature of PW.3 on inquest report dated 20-11-2016.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

6

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg. Date of Explanation of delay and OffenceReportApprehensiReleased CommenceClose of Sentence Remarks on of on bail-ment of trial Accusedtrial 12345678 19-11-1619-11-1625-11-1625-11-1619-4-1720-4-1724-4-17 No delay

Judgment in C.C. No.680/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Complainant:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Beluguppa Town Police Station.

Crime No. 123 /2016

SNo Name of the AgeFather’s NameReligionCallingResidenceTaluk Accused

Talari 23 LakshmannaHinduDriverDuddekuntaBeluguppa Thimmanna @ years Thimmappa

Offence:- U/s. 304-A IPC. Finding :- Found not guilty Sentence or Order : -

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 304-A IPC accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Copy submitted to: 1) The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.

2) The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur.

Dis.No. Dt.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

7 8

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KALYANDURG.

Present: Sri Y.Nagaraja Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Tuesday, the 18th day of April, 2017

CALENDER CASE No.91 of 2015

Between:-

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station.

.... Complainant.

Vs

Harish, age 35 years, S/o Govindappa, Rayalappadoddi village, Bramhasamudram mandal. Driver of Tata Ace Goods Vehicle bearing No. AP02-TB-7922. … Accused

This case came on 12-4-2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G.K.Harichakravarthy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.01 of 2015 for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A IPC against the accused.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, about two days back i.e., 3-1-2015 Baba Fakruddin made phone call to the deceased G.Seeganna to visit Mylupalli village and take away the wooden cot. Then the deceased G.Seeganna left the village on 4-1-2015 at 11-30 a.m., to Mylupalli village to bring wooden cot. At about 3-00 p.m., the deceased G.Seeganna engaged a TATA Ace luggage auto bearing No. AP02-TB-7922 along with Baba Fakruddin loaded with wooden cot to fix the same at Mangampalli village. At about 4-00 p.m., when the accused being the driver of auto drove the auto at high speed in a rash and negligent manner reached near the Forest Nursery of

A.Gollapalli village curve on Settur – Kalyandurg road lost control over it and turned turtle on the road side pit. As a result of which Baba Fakruddin and the deceased

G.Seeganna fell down and sustained contusion and severe bleeding injuries. The same was witnessed by V.Hanumantharayaudu and M.Chennamala immediately assisted the injured after ascertaining their identity particulars and called 108 ambulance over phone and informed the same to the relatives of the deceased G.Seeganna over phone and sent them to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg for treatment and where the deceased G.Seeganna died on the way and M.Baba Fakruddin got admitted into

Government Hospital, Kalyandurg for treatment.

2

On complaint of M.Baba Fakruddin, a case in Crime No.01/2015 U/s. 337, 304-A IPC was registered by K.Venkata Ramana/Sub-Inspector of Police on 14-1-2015 at 8-00 p.m., and took up investigation in this case.

During the course of investigation, on 5-1-2015 Sub-Inspector of Police went to

Community Health Centre, Kalyandurg and secured the presence of G.Sathyamma,

G.Anithamma, G.Sridevi, G.Shilpa, G.Nagesh, V.Hanumantharayudu and M.Chennamala, examined and recorded their statements and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased G.Seeganna in the presence of S.L.Shoba, Village Revenue Officer,

B.Ramabheemappa and K.Mallikarjuna and forwarded the dead body to Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Kalyandurg for conducting autopsy. Further he visited scene of offence and inspected the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch.

Dr.Ranganath conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased G.Seeganna and opined that the deceased would appear to have been died due to Varovagual shock, injury to the gented parts for road accident.

Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 16-1-2015 at 10-00 a.m. and questioned to produced the records of the crime vehicle for verification and he produced his driving licence and registration certificate No.AP02-TB-7922 in his favour,

H.No.3-131, Rayalappadoddi, Bramhasamudram, Ananthapuramu District and released the accused on bail.

Sreenivasulu, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ananthapuramu who examined the crime vehicle Tata Ace goods vehicle on the request of Sub-Inspector of Police and issued

Motor Vehicle Report opined that the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Hence the charge.

3. On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance of the offence U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C.

4. On appearance of accused, the copies of case documents have been furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined U/S.251 Cr.P.C. by putting the substance of alleged accusation for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A I.P.C., read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which he denied the said offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution P.W.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5.

3

PW.1 is defacto complainant. PW.2 is wife of deceased G.Seeganna. PW.3 is independent witness. PW.4 is independent inquest panchayatdar.

Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on statement. Ex.P.2 to P.4 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.1 to 3, Ex.P.5 is signature of PW.4 on inquest report dated 5-1-2015.

7. Since there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

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

9. Now the point for determination:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against accused for the offences U/s 337, 304-A I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Point:-

PW.1 is defacto complainant, he deposed that about 2 years back himself and deceased G.Seeganna were proceeding in a TATA Ace from Mylupalli to Mangampalli village by loading wooden cot. When they reached near Gollapalli forest area at about 3-00 p.m., the said TATA Ace turned turtle. He sustained bleeding injury on his fore-head and fracture to his waist. He does not know who was the driver at the time of incident. The deceased G.Seeganna sustained injuries on his thighs. Immediately after incident himself and deceased G.Seeganna died on the way to the hospital. He took treatment for one day at Kalyandurg, from there he went to private hospital,

Chitradurga. He cannot say at whose rash and negligent act the incident took place.

Police obtained his signature on some written papers. He does not know its contents.

Ex.P.1 is his signature on report. PW.1 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

11. PW.2 is wife of deceased G.Seeganna, she deposed that her husband died about 2 years back in a road traffic accident. She does not know how the accident took place. She does not know at whose rash and negligent act the incident took place.

PW.2 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

12. PW.3 is independent eye witness, he turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

13. PW.4 is inquest panchayatdar, he deposed that he was not present at the time of inquest held over the dead body of deceased Golla Seeganna. The signature on inquest report dated 5-1-2015 is that of him. He put the signature at police station and 4 he does not know its contents. Ex.P.5 is signature on inquest report dated 5-1-2015.

PW.5 turned hostile did not support the case of the prosecution.

14. After examination of PWs.1 to 4, as they did not state any incriminating material against the accused, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., G.Anithamma, G.Sridevi, G.Shilpa, G.Nagesh, M.Chennamala,

S.L.Shoba/Village Revenue Officer, K.Mallikarjuna, Dr.Ranganath, Sreenivasulu/Motor

Vehicle Inspector and K.Venkataramana/Sub-Inspector of Police (LWs.3 to 6, 8 and 9, 11 to 14). Since there was no incriminating material against the accused, examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

15. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, their evidence is not to the effect that on 3-1-2015 at 4-00 p.m., the accused being the driver of auto drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner reached near the Forest Nursery of A.Gollapalli village curve on Settur-Kalyandurg road lost control over it and turned turtle on the road side pit. Further it is not their evidence to the effect that as a result of said incident PW.1 and deceased G.Seeganna fell down and sustained contusion and severe bleeding injuries and where the deceased G.Seeganna died on the way. PW.1 being a defacto complainant did not state any incriminating material against accused except admitting his signature on report which is marked as Ex.P.1. Further PW.1 to 3 turned hostile and stated against their previous statements given U/s.161 Cr.P.C which are marked as

Exs.P.2 to P.4. PW.4 being an inquest panchayatdar also turned hostile except admitting his signature on inquest report dated 5-1-2015 and the same was marked as Ex.P.5.

Though Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross examined PWs.1 to 4 nothing was elicited in support of case of prosecution. As there is no incriminating material against the accused to prove his rash and negligent act in causing death of G.Seeganna and injuries to PW.1 this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A IPC accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 18th day of April, 2017.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

5

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution Defence PW.1: M.Baba Fakruddin None PW.2: G.Sathyamma PW.3: V.Hanumantharayudu PW.4: B.Ramabheemappa Exhibits marked for Prosecution. Defence Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report. Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5 is signature of PW.5 on inquest report dated 5-1-2015.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

6

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg. Date of Explanation of delay and OffenceReportApprehensiReleased CommenceClose of Sentence Remarks on of on bail-ment of trial Accusedtrial 12345678 4-1-154-1-1516-1-1516-1-1521-3-1712-4-1718-4-17 No delay

Judgment in C.C. No.91/2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Complainant:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station.

Crime No. 0 1/2015

SNo Name of the AgeFather’s NameReligionCallingResidenceTaluk Accused

Harish35 GovindappaHinduDriverRayalappa Bramha yearsdoddi samudram

Offence:- U/s. 337, 304-A IPC. Finding :- Found not guilty Sentence or Order : -

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s. 337, 304-A

IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the same U/s 255(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Copy submitted to: 1) The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.

2) The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur.

Dis.No. Dt.

//True Copy//

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

7 8

1 to5

CC.No.250 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KALYANDURG.

Present: Sri Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kalyandurg.

Friday, the 11th day of December, 2015

CALENDER CASE No. 250 of 2014

Between:-

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station.

....Complainant

Vs

1. Paggala Khasim Sab, aged 60 years, S/o Imam Sab,

2. Khajabi, aged 50 years, W/o Khasim Sab,

3. Imam Sab, aged 35 years, S/o Khasim Sab,

4. Islam, aged 21 years, S/o Khasim Sab,

5. Amina Bee, aged 30 years, W/o Imam Sab,

6. Nazamunni, aged 22 years, W/o Dadapeera,

All are residents of Lakshmampalli village, Settur Mandal.

.... Accused

This case coming on 8-12-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri T.Dada Khalandar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime

No.213 of 2014 for the offences U/Ss. 147, 452, 323 r/w 149 I.P.C. against the accused Nos.1 to 6.

2. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, there is a dispute of house in between the accused and Shaik Pathima Bee, Paggala Peera and Khalandar. Accused

No.1 is the fourth own brother of Paggala Peera. Paggala Peera had five brothers.

Paggala Peera purchased the house of his father in the year 1992 after paying the amount to his brothers and since then residing in the said house along with his family.

Later the accused were demanding Shaik Pathima Bee and Paggala Peera to give their share in the said house as they are having right and title. But Shaik Pathima Bee and

JFCM, Kalyandurg.

2 to5

CC.No.250 of 2014

Paggala Peera advised them as they purchased the house after paying money to all of them under agreement of sale in the presence of elders, but the accused paid deaf ear.

On 30-7-2014 at about 7-00 p.m., the accused Nos. 1 to 6 being formed into unlawful assembly criminally trespassed into the house of Shaik Pathima Bee and

Paggala Peera with an intention to oust them from their house and dragged out Shaik

Pathima Bee with high handed manner and beat with hands and legs on her chest, stomach and caused swelling injuries. On seeing it Paggala Peera came in rescue of

Shaik Pathima Bee, then the accused Nos.1 to 6 pushed him down dragged out and attacked with hands and legs with an intention to grab the house as they are having share in the said disputed house.

Basing on the statement of Shaik Pathima Bee, a case in Crime

No.213/2014 U/ss 147, 452, 323 r/w 149 IPC., was registered by

K.Venkataramana/Sub-Inspector of Police, investigated, examined the witnesses, visited the scene and prepared rough sketch of the scene.

On 14-8-2012 at 11-30 a.m., Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused No.1 to 6 and sent them for remand.

Dr.H.Rajendra Prasad rendered treatment to Shaik Pathima Bee and issued wound certificate that the injuries sustained by her is simple in nature. Hence the charge.

3. On perusal of the record, this court took cognizance of the offences U/ss 147, 452, 323 r/w 149 I.P.C. against accused No.1 to 6.

4. On appearance of accused No.1 to 6, the copies of case documents have been furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused No.1 to 6 were examined U/S.239 Cr.P.C., they denied the offence, charge U/S 452 r/w 149 I.P.C., 323 r/w 149, 147 r/w 149 IPC., have been framed against accused No.1 to 6, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution PW.1 and 2 examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.3.

PW.1 is defacto complainant and injured. PW.2 is eye witness and husband of

PW.1.

Ex.P.1 is signature of PW.1 on report. Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1.

Ex.P.3 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

JFCM, Kalyandurg.

3 to5

CC.No.250 of 2014

7. Since there is no incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of the accused No.1 to 6 U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

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

9.Now the point for determination:

1. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt against accused No.1 to 6 for the offences U/ss. 452 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 147 r/w 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:

PW.1 is defacto-complainant and injured, she deposed that the accused Nos.1 to 6 never trespassed into her house and quarreled with her. Herself and her husband did not sustain any injuries in the hands of accused. She did not prefer report against accused. Police obtained her signature on some written papers and she does not know its contents. Ex.P.1 is her signature on report. PW.1 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

11. PW.2 eye witness and husband of PW.1, he deposed that the accused Nos.1 to 6 never trespassed into his house and quarreled with PW.1. Himself and PW.1 did not sustain any injuries in the hands of accused. PW.2 turned hostile did not support the case of prosecution.

12. After examination of PW.1 and 2, as they did not state anything against the accused No.1 to 6, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., Khalandar, Paggala Imam Sab, Mazan Bee, Hussain Sab,

Hussain, Dr.H.Rajendra Prasad, K.Venkata Ramana/Sub-Inspector of Police. Since there was no incriminating material against the accused No.1 to 6, examination U/s 313

Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

13. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and 2 their evidence is not to the effect that on 30-7-2014 at about 7-00 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 6 formed into unlawful assembly criminally trespassed into the house of PWs.1 and 2 with an intention to oust them from their house and dragged out PW.1 with high handed manner and beat with hands and legs on her chest, stomach and caused swelling injuries. PW.1 and 2 did not state anything against the accused Nos.1 to 6 and they stated against their previous statements given U/s 161 Cr.P.C which are marked as Ex.P.2 and P.3. Even though the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.1 and 2 nothing was elicited in

JFCM, Kalyandurg.

4 to5

CC.No.250 of 2014

support of the case of prosecution. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is insufficient to come to a conclusion that accused No.1 to 6 committed the offences

U/ss.452 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 147 r/w 149 IPC.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against accused No.1 to 6 for the offences U/ss 452 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149, 147 r/w 149 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 6 and against the prosecution.

15. In the result, accused No.1 to 6 found not guilty for the offences U/ss 452 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 147 r/w 149 IPC., and accordingly they are acquitted of the same

U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 6 shall be in force in terms of Sec.

437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

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

pronounced by me in open court this the 11th day of December, 2015.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution Defence

PW.1: S.Pathima Bee -None- PW.2: P.Peera

Exhibits marked for Prosecution. Defence Ex.P.1: Signature of PW.1 on report. Nil Ex.P.2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

// True Copy //

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

JFCM, Kalyandurg.

5 to5

CC.No.250 of 2014

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District:: ANANTHAPURAMU Calendar cases tried by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kalyandurg.

Date of Explanation of delay and Remarks OffenceReportApprehenReleased Commence-Close of Sentence sion of on bailment of trial Accusedtrial 12345678 30-7-1430-7-1431-7-1414-8-148-12-158-12-1511-12-15No delay

Judgment in C.C. No.250/2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg.

Complainant:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Settur Police Station.

Crime No.213/2014

SNo Father’s (or) Name of the Taluk AgeHusband’s ReligionCallingResidence Accused Name

1.Paggala 60 Imam SabMuslimCooly Lakshmampalli Settur Khasim Sabyears

2.Khajabi50 Khasim SabMuslimCooly Lakshmampalli Settur years

3. Imam Sab35 Khasim SabMuslimCooly Lakshmampalli Settur years

4. Islam21 Khasim SabMuslimCooly Lakshmampalli Settur years

5. Amina bee30 Imam SabMuslimCooly Lakshmampalli Settur years

6.Nazamunni22 DadapeeraMuslimCooly Lakshmampalli Settur years

Offence:- U/ss 452 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 147 r/w 149 IPC. Finding :- Found not guilty Sentence or Order : -

In the result, accused No.1 to 6 found not guilty for the offences U/ss 452 r/w 149, 323 r/w 149 and 147 r/w 149 IPC., and accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 6 shall be in force in terms of Sec. 437-A Cr.P.C. for a period of six months.

Sd/-Y.Nagaraja,

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

Copy submitted to: 1) The Hon’ble I Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur.

2) The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur.

Dis.No. Dt. // True Copy //

JFCM, Kalyandurg.

6 to5

CC.No.250 of 2014

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kalyandurg.

JFCM, Kalyandurg.