1
Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.154 of 2012 on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Podili
1. Date of Offence: 20.6.2012
2. Date of report: 20.6.2012
3. Date of arrest of accused: 16.7.2012
4. Date of release on bail : 16.7.2012
5. Date of commencement of trial: 8.5.2015
6. Date of close of trial: 8.5.2015
7. Date of judgment: 15.5.2015
8. Complainant: State : Sub Inspector of police Podili P.S.
9. Accused :Pothuraju Veera Brahmachary, S/o.Rambramham, 30 years, Viswabrahmin, Batchalakurapadu village, Konakanamitla Mandal, rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 B 7936.
10.Offence :U/s.304-A IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w 196MV Act
11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
12. Finding of court : Found not guilty
13. Sentence or order : Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s. 304-A IPC,
Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w 196 MV Act and he is acquitted Under Section 255 (1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per
Section 437A Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to the case property.
Explanation for the delay:
The Sub Inspector of Police, Podili Police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences U/s.304-A IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w 196 MV
2
Act. On 25.8.2012 this case was taken on file against the accused for the offences
U/s.304-A IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w 196 MV Act. On 13.2.2013 the copies of documents are furnished to the accused. On 24.6.2014 Accused examined under
Sec.251 Cr.P.C., and the accusation U/s.304-A IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w 196
MV Act read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW3 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the remaining witnesses cited in the charge sheet are given up by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the examination of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. On 15.5.2015 heard arguments on both sides. On the same day Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment. Hence the delay.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri,
FAC : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili.
Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole.
Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Ongole
3
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: PODILI
Present : Smt A.Geetha Vani,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri,
FAC : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili
Friday this the 15 th day of May, 2015
Calendar Case No.154 of 2012
Between:
State : Sub-Inspector of Police, Podili P.S … Complainant.
And
Pothuraju Veera Brahmachary, S/o.Rambramham, 30 years, Viswabrahmin, Batchalakurapadu village, Konakanamitla Mandal, rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 B 7936.
.... Accused
Name of the Deceased :
Somula Ankaiah, S/o.Narasaiah, 50 years, Reddy by caste, Peddarikatla village, Konakanamitla Mandal.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of
Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri.Sk.Shabbir, Learned
Advocate for the accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Podili Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.304-A IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181 MV Act, U/s.146 r/w 196 MV Act, in Crime No.101/12 of Podili Police Station alleging as follows:
4
The case of the prosecution is that on 20.6.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. PW1 and the deceased Somula Ankaiah went to Batavia garden of one Prasad for cutting
Botavia fruits, evening at about 4.00 p.m. they collected 4 bags of fruits from the garden and engaged the auto of PW3 and loaded the bags in the auto and PW1 and deceased also boarded in the same auto and left the place and when the auto reached near YSR statue at Pothavaaram village on Giddalur Podili road, the accused rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 B 7936 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while coming from their opposite direction and hit the deceased who sat on the right side of PW3, resulting which the auto turned turtle on the right side of the road, the deceased fell down on the road and received bleeding injuries, later he succumbed to injuries. Basing on the statement of PW1, LW11 K.Kamalakar registered the same as a case in Cr.No.101/12 U/s.304-A IPC, issued FIR to the
Hon'ble court, took up investigation in this case, visited the scene of offence, examined
the witnesses, recorded their statements, prepared rough sketch and scene observation report in the presence of mediators and held inquest over the dead body of deceased and sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination, addressed a letter to
Motor Vehicle Inspector for conducting road test of crime vehicle and arrested the accused on 16.7.2012 and sent him for remand. After receipt of Motor Vehicle
Inspector report, Post Mortem certificate and on completion of investigation LW11 has filed chargesheet for the offence U/s.304-A IPC and Sec.3 r/w 181 MV Act, U/s.146 r/w 196 MV Act.
2.This case was taken cognizance of the offence U/s.304-A IPC, Sec.3 r/w 181
MV Act, U/s.146 r/w 196 MV Act against accused. On appearance of accused, copies of all documents as required Under Section 207 Cr. P.C. were furnished to them. When examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences, the accused pleaded not guilty of the offences and claimed to be tried.
3.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.3. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the remaining wit-
5
nesses cited in the charge sheet are given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecu- tor. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the exami- nation of accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.
4.Heard the arguments of both sides.
5.Now the point for determination is
“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against Accused for the
offence U/s.304-A IPC Sec.3 r/w 181 MV Act and U/s.146 r/w 196 MV Act, be
yond reasonable doubt ?”
6.P O I N T :
It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the driver of the crime vehicle drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased and thereby he committed an offence punishable U/s.304-
A IPC and further the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.3 r/w 181 MV Act and Sec.146 r/w 196 MV Act as he drove the vehicle without insurance and driving licence. Where as the case of the defense is total denial.
7.On behalf of the prosecution the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor has ar- gued that the accused is liable for punishment for the offences charged basing on the evidence available on the record at the same time the learned counsel for ac- cused argued that no independent witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and all the witnesses turned hostile including Defacto Complainant, thereby there is no evidence available on the record.
8. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 S.Chenchamma who is the resident of
Peddarikatla village that she is a fruit vendor, the deceased S.Ankaiah is her hus- band, at about two years back at 5.00 p.m. while her husband coming from Ped- darikatla to Podili in an auto, when it reached to Pothavaram one motor cycle came in the opposite direction and dashed each other as a result her husband fell down and sustained injuries, she cannot say on whose negligence the accident took
6
place, some body made a phone call to 108 ambulance and accordingly her husband shifted to Government Hospital, Podili, police came to hospital and obtained her thumb impression, she cannot identified her thumb impression, so her statement was not marked. Further she deposed that she entered into compromise with the ac- cused.
9. It is the evidence of PW2 who is the daughter of deceased Ankaiah that she does not know anything about this case. Coming to the evidence of PW3
B.Buddareddy who is the resident of Peddarikatla village he deposed that he is doing cultivation and he does not know anything about this case.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.6.2012 at about 9.00 hours
PW1 and the deceased went to Batavia garden of one Prasad for cutting Batavia fruits in the evening at 4.00 p.m. they collected 4 bags of fruits from the garden and engaged the auto of PW3 and loaded the bags in the auto, PW1 and the deceased also boarded in the same auto and left the place at about 5.00 p.m. and proceeded to- wards Podili for selling the fruits, when the auto bearing No.AP 27 Y 9136 reached near YSR statue at Pothavaram village on Giddalur – Podili road, the accused rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 27 B 7936 drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while coming from their opposite direction and hit the deceased who sat on the right side of PW3, resulting which the auto turned turtle on the right side of the road, the deceased fell down on the road and the accused also sustained in- juries, some body made phone call to 108 ambulance and shifted the injured to Com- munity Health Center, Podili, on examination of the injured Somula Ankaiah the doc- tor declared as dead.
11. To substantiate the case of the prosecution though the prosecution exam - ined PW1 to PW3 no witnesses deposed any rash or negligent driving of the ac- cused at the time of accident. Since the material witnesses turned hostile to the pros- ecution this court closed the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e., LW11 K.Ka- malakar, Sub Inspector of police, Podili Police Station as there is no purpose served if
7
he examined. In Sec.304-A IPC cases the prosecution must establish either rash- ness or negligent driving of the accused at the time of accident, but in the present case the prosecution did not place any material before the court to prove either the rashness or negligent driving of the accused at the time of accident thereby this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
12.In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence U/s. 304-A IPC,
Sec.3 r/w 181, Sec.146 r/w 196 MV Act and he is acquitted Under Section 255 (1)
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per
Section 437A Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to the case property.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open court, this the 15th day of May, 2015.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri,
FAC : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For prosecution : For defence.
PW1 : S.Chenchamma None PW2 : S.Geethanjali PW3 : B.Buddareddy
Documents Marked
For Prosecution For defense
Ex.P1 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 NIL Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3
Material Objects NIL
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri,
FAC : Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili.