1 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HANUMAKONDA.
Wednesday, this the 10th day of August, 2022
PRESENT:A.Kumara Swamy, III-Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum- III-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.
CALENDER CASE NO.693 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
The State of Telangana represented by Inspector of Police, PS Hanamkonda (Traffic).…Complainant AND
Mohd Ibrahim, s/o Ismail, Aged: 41 years, Muslim, Occu: Lorry Driver bearing No.AP23 U5499, R/o # 2-12-13/1, Durga Colony, Jammikunta village and Mandal, Karimnagar District.…Accused
This case having come before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the State and of Sri T.Sridhar, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, upon hearing the arguments on either side and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivers the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The Inspector of Police, PS Hanamkonda (Traffic), has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.84 of 2015 of PS Hanamkonda Traffic for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal
Code.
2 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, are as follows:
i)On 16.5.2015 at 09.15 hours PW1 came to police station
Hanamkonda Traffic and lodged a report by stating that on his second son i.e. Pendela Thilak Kumar @ Thilak, who is deceased was residing at
Ramnagar and preparing for SI examinations at Hanamkonda. On 15.5.2015 LW5-Mamidi Ravi made a phone call in the night to his younger son/LW4-Pendela Sardhar and informed that while the deceased was proceeding on his TVS Sports Motorcycle bearing No.AP36 AY1380 from
Bheemaram side and proceeding towards Hanamkonda Petrol Pump on the way at about 10.30 p.m., when he reached in front of T.B. Hospital, one Lorry bearing No.AP23 U5499 (hereinafter called as crime vehicle) proceeding in front of the deceased from Bheemaram side and proceeding towards KUC X-road and the driver of the lorry drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner without applying indicators applied sudden brake, resulting the deceased dashed to the back side of the lorry and sustained injuries on his head, forehead, upper lip, below the left eye and stomach, then LW5 and PW2 shifted the deceased to MGM Hospital, Warangal, in 108 ambulance. Immediately, PW1 along with their family members rushed to MGM Hospital, Warangal, found the condition of his son was critical, from there they shifted the deceased to Max Care Hospital,
Hanamkonda, while undergoing treatment on 16.5.2015 at 8.30 a.m., the 3 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 deceased lost his breath. PW1 enquired the particulars of the lorry driver and came to know as Mohammed Ibrahim, the accused herein. Further, the front doom, handle, tyre reem of the motorcycle of the deceased were damaged. By alleging the above said facts, requested the police to take action.
3.On receipt of the report from PW1, PW5 has registered a case vide
Cr.No.84/2015 under Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR. He examined and recorded the statement of PW1. Later, he along with PW1 visited the scene of offence, conducted crime details form along with rough sketch in the presence of two mediators, got photographed the scene of offence and damaged motorcycle and seized the crime vehicle. Later, he along with PW1 MGM Hospital, Warangal, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4 and LW13-Allepu Shyam, got photographed the dead body of the deceased with the help of PW6, examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. Later, he referred the dead body of the deceased to
Professor, FMD, KMC, Warangal for postmortem examination. He also submitted a requisition to the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Warangal. On 18.5.2015 at 11.30 hours PW3 along with the accused appeared before him, surrendered the accused before him and the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. The accused produced the 4 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 documents of the crime vehicle and his driving license. He affected the arrest of the accused and after furnishing sureties, released him on bail.
PW7 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to blunt injury abdomen.
LW15-B.Satyanarayana, Motor Vehicles Inspector, Warangal, who inspected the crime vehicle opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code.
4.On receipt of the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and issued summons to him.
5.On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and he was examined under Section 251 of The Code of Criminal Procedure and the substance of accusation for the offences punishable under
Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs-P1 to P8. On behalf of the 5 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 defence, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and father of the deceased. PW2 is the eye witness. PW3 is the owner of the crime vehicle. PW4 is the panch witness for inquest. PW5 is the Investigating Officer. PW6 is the photographer.
PW7 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. Ex-P1 is the report lodged by PW1. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex-P3 is the inquest panchanama. Ex-P4 is the FIR.
Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P6 are the photographs.
Ex-P7 are two photographs and one CD. Ex-P8 is the PME report. This
Court closed the evidence of LWs 10, 11 and 15 (Kongara Kishore,
Duppati Subhash and B.Satyanarayana). The learned APPO has given up the evidence of LWs 2 to 5, 8 and 13 (Pendela Suvarna, Pendela
Alexander, Pendela Sardhar, Mamidi Ravi, Rasala Krishna and Allepu
Shyam).
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, for which he denied the incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and further reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard both sides.
6 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
9.The learned APPO claimed a conviction on the evidence of PWs 1 to 7. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused submitted that there is no identification that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle. He further submitted that as per the allegations of the prosecution that the driver of the lorry applied sudden brakes, due to which the motorcyclist who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry and fell down on the road and succumbed to injuries. But the driver of the lorry is not negligent. The deceased should have maintain a distance and due to his negligence, he dashed to the lorry and further the police not produced anything that the accused as in drunken condition. Already there was caution on the back side of the lorry to away 50 feet. He further submitted that the scene of offence is not a high way. He also further submitted that the pits were dug at the left side of the road. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver. He also further submitted that the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report also shows that no mechanical defects in the lorry. Therefore, the accused is no way responsible for the alleged accident.
10.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code?
7 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
11.POINT:Coming to the appreciation on record, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP23
U5499 proceeding towards petrol bunk in the same direction applied sudden brakes, due to which, the deceased who was proceeding behind the lorry on his motorcycle dashed to the lorry and fell down on the road and succumbed to injuries.
12.To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 7 and got marked Exs-P1 to P8.
13.PW1 who is father of the deceased-Tilak has deposed that the deceased-Tilak Kumar was his younger son. He further deposed that on 15.5.2015 in the night hours, he came to know through LW5-Ravi that his son met with a road accident caused by a lorry at T.B. Hospital near KUC
X-road, while he was returning room on his motorcycle and he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment, from there to Max Care
Hospital, Hanamkonda, where he found his son with severe injuries over head, abdomen and on face. He further deposed that on 16.5.2015 in the morning hours, his son succumbed to injuries and he lodged a report under Ex-P1 to the police.
14.PW2 who is eye witness to the accident has deposed that on 15.5.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., while he along with LW5-M.Ravi were 8 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 proceeding in his auto rickshaw from Bheemaram to Petrol Bunk, on the way near TB Hospital, they noticed the driver of lorry bearing No.AP23
V5499 proceeding towards petrol bunk in the same direction, applied sudden brakes, due to which the motorcyclist who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry and fell down, resulting he sustained injuries over forehead, nose and abdomen. He further deposed that immediately, they informed to 108 ambulance and shifted the injured to hospital and also informed to the family members to the injured over phone. He further deposed that the injured succumbed to injuries on the next day morning in
Max Care Hospital. He further deposed that the accused who is standing
in the Court hall was the then driver of lorry bearing number AP23 V5499.
15.PW3 who is owner of the lorry has deposed that he is the registered owner of lorry bearing No.AP20 U5499 and the accused being the driver of his lorry. He further deposed that his lorry never involved in any road accident allegedly caused by the accused. He further deposed that in the year 2015 when the Sub-Inspector of Police, directed him to show his vehicle documents, he handed over the originals and within 15 minutes they returned his documents. He turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
9 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
16.PW4 who is panch witness for inquest has deposed that on 15.5.2015 he came to know that accident was occurred to Tilak and they rushed to the hospital and the police conducted inquest panchanama in the hospital in his presence and in the presence of LW13-A.Shyam. He further deposed that Tilak received injury to his eye and lips and there was bandage to the stomach. After read over the panchanama, they signed on the panchanama. Ex-P3 is the inquest panchanama.
17.PW5 who is Investigating Officer in the present case has deposed that on 16.5.2015 he received a report from PW1 and registered a case in
Cr.No.84/2015 under Sections 304A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and issued FIR under Ex-P4. He further deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited scene of offence along with PW1, conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex-P5 in the presence of
LW10/K.Kishore and LW11/D.Subhash and he got photographed the scene of offence and motorcycle under Ex-P6 and also seized the crime vehicle. He further deposed that he also visited MGM Hospital along with
PW1, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of
PW4 and LW13/A.Shyam as in Ex-P3. He also got photographed the dead body of the deceased under Ex-P7 with the help of PW6. He further deposed that he also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. Later, he referred the dead body for PME. He further deposed 10 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 that on 18.5.2015 the accused appeared before him along with PW3 and confessed his guilt. After collecting PME report from PW7 and crime vehicle report from LW15-B.Satyanarayana, he filed charge sheet.
18.PW6 who is photographer has deposed that seven years back,
Hanamkonda Traffic police called him that one male person died in MGM
Hospital. Accordingly, he went there, photographed the male died person in mortuary room and he handed over the photographs and CD. Ex-P7 are two photographs and one CD.
19.PW7 who conduced autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has deposed that on 16.5.2015 he received requisition from SHO of PS
Hanamkonda Traffic at 2.00 pm to conduct PME over the dead body of the deceased/P.Tilak Kumar @ Tilak. Accordingly, he conducted PME and noted anti-mortem injuries which are noted in column No.11 of his PME report and the cause of death was due to blunt injury abdomen. Ex-P8 is the PME report.
20.The following are the substance of charges levelled against the accused person:
Section 279 of Indian Penal Code – Rash driving against the accused person on a public way:- whoever drives any vehicle or rides on any public way in a manner of rash or negligent has to endanger for 11 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.100/- or with both.
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code – Causing death by negligence:- Whoever causes to death of any person by doing any rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment on either description in term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
21.To bring the case under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the following conditions must exists:
(I) there must be death of the person in question; and (II) the accused must have caused such death; and (III)that such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
22.So far as the said alleged charges are concerned, the prosecution has to establish the essential ingredients of Section 279 of Indian Penal
Code are that there must be a rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person and as regards the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code that the act of the 12 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent. As discussed above the most important ingredients which needs essential by the prosecution in order to prove home the conviction of the accused under Section 279 of Indian
Penal Code and Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. The act of the accused must be rash and negligent driving by the accused.
23.As seen that so far as the Point Nos.I and II i.e. there must be death of the person in question and the accused must have caused such death.
As seen the Ex-P1 lodged by PW1 and the evidence of PW1 discloses that on 15.5.2015 at night hours his son met with an road accident caused by a lorry at T.B. Hospital near KUC X-road, while he was returning room on his motorcycle, then he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, then he was shifted to Maxcare Hospital, Hanamkonda, where he found his son with severe injuries over head, abdomen and on fact and on the next day his son succumbed to injuries. The evidence of PW4 who is panch witness for inquest also discloses that the police conducted deceased inquest panchanama in his presence. The evidence of PW6 also discloses that he got photographed male died person in mortuary room in
MGM Hospital. Then he handed over Ex-P6 i.e. photographs and CD to the police. Ex-P8 is the postmortem examination report which shows that the deceased was died due to blunt injury on abdomen. Therefore, the 13 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 deceased by name P.Thilak met with an accident and succumbed to injuries. Further, there is no dispute about the death in question.
24.So far as the accused must have caused such death is concerned, as seen the Ex-P1 lodged by PW1 and the evidence of PW1 that Ex-P1 shows that on 15.5.2015 he received a phone call that while his second son was proceeding on his TVS Sports Motorcycle bearing No.AP36
AY1380 from Bheemaram side and proceeding towards Hanamkonda
Petrol Pump side on the way night at about 10.30 p.m., when reached in front of T.B. Hospital, one lorry bearing No.AP23 U5499 was proceeding in front of his son and the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in high speed in a rash and negligent manner without applying indicators applied sudden brakes, as a result of which his son dashed to the back side of the lorry and succumbed to injuries. The evidence of PW1 also discloses that his son with met road accident caused by lorry at T.B. Hospital near KUC
X- road, subsequently, he was succumbed to injuries.
25.The evidence of PW2 discloses that on 15.5.2015 at 10.30 p.m., while himself along with LW5-M.Ravi were proceeding in his auto rickshaw from Bheemaram to Petrol Bunk, on the way near T.B. Hospital, they noticed the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 V5499 proceeding towards petrol bunk in the same direction applied sudden 14 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 brakes, due to which, the motorcyclist who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry, fell down and he was shifted to the hospital. The injured succumbed to injuries on the next day. The accused who is standing in the Court hall was the then driver of the lorry bearing No.AP23
V5499.
26.So far as the accused is the driver of the lorry is concerned, PW2 deposed that the accused was the then driver of the lorry bearing No.AP23
V5499 who is eye witness to the alleged incident. PW3 who is owner of the lorry whose evidence discloses that he was registered owner of the lorry bearing registration No.AP20 U5499 and the accused being the driver of his lorry. He further deposed that his lorry never involved in any road accident allegedly caused by the accused. PW3 himself admitted that the said lorry belongs to him and the accused was driver of the lorry. Though, he deposed that his lorry never involved in any road accident allegedly caused by the accused. But PW2 evidence discloses that the accused who is standing in the Court hall was the then driver of the said lorry.
Though, the learned Counsel for the accused elicited that he has not stated the physical features of the driver of the lorry. But nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of PW2 that the accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle.
15 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
27.Further, as seen the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 that the accused is the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP23 V5499 who applied sudden brakes, due to which, the deceased who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry and died which shows that the accused caused the death of the deceased.
28.So far as the other point i.e. such act of the accused was rash or negligent in causing the death of the deceased is concerned, as seen the
Ex-P1 lodged by PW1 that on 15.5.2015 LW5-M.Ravi made a phone call in the night to his younger son P.Sardar and informed that while his second son was proceeding on his TVS Sports Motorcycle bearing No.AP36
AY1380 from Bheemaram side and proceeding towards Hanamkonda
Petrol Pump side on the way in the night at about 10.30 p.m., when he reached in front of T.B. Hospital, one lorry bearing No.AP23 U5499 was proceeding in front of his son from Bheemaram side and proceeding towards KUC X road, the driver of the said lorry drove his lorry in high speed in a rash and negligent manner without applying indicators applied sudden brakes, as a result of which his son dashed to the back side of the lorry and sustained injuries on his head, forehead, upper lip, below left eye and stomach and succumbed to injuries. But as seen the evidence of
PW1 that on 15.5.2015 in the night hours he came to through LW5-M.Ravi that his son met with road accident caused by a lorry at T.B. Hospital near 16 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
KUC X road while he was returning room on his motorcycle and he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment, subsequently, he was shifted to Maxcare Hospital, Hanamkonda, where he found his son succumbed to injuries.
29.As seen the Ex-P1 lodged by PW1 that the driver of the lorry drove in high speed in a rash and negligent manner without applying indicators and applied sudden brakes, as a result of which his son dashed to the back side of the lorry. But as seen the evidence of PW1 that his son met with road accident caused by a lorry at T.B. Hospital. Therefore, in this regard, there is inconsistency in between Ex-P1 lodged by PW1 and the evidence of PW1.
30.Further, as seen the evidence of PW2, who is eye witness to the alleged incident is that on 15.5.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., while himself along with LW5-M.Ravi were proceeding in his auto rickshaw from
Bheemaram to petrol bunk on the way near T.B. Bospital, they noticed the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 V5499 proceeding towards petrol bunk in the same direction applied sudden brakes, due to which, the motorcyclist who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry and fell down on the road, due to which, he sustained injuries, subsequently, he was succumbed to injuries.
17 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
31.PW5 who is the Investigating Officer who deposed that basing on the report, he registered a case in Cr.No.84/23015 and issued FIR. Ex-P4 is the FIR. He visited scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex-P5 and got photographed the scene of offence under Ex-P6. He visited MGM Hospital, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex-P3 and got photographed the dead body with the help of photographer. Ex-P7 are the photographs. The dead body was referred to postmortem examination and obtained PME report.
He also obtained MVI’s report from LW15-B.Satyanarayana and after examining all the witnesses, he filed a charge sheet.
32.As seen that the evidence of PW2 discloses that the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP23 V5499 proceeding towards petrol pump in the same direction applied sudden brakes, due to which, the motorcyclist who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry fell down on the road and sustained injuries, subsequently succumbed to injuries.
33.In this regard, the learned Counsel for the accused elicited from the mouth of PW2 that the alleged accident took place at 10.30 p.m. After 10 p.m., long length lorries i.e. 10 tyres used to enter into the city and the back side of the said lorries, there was a caution that to away 50 feet to 18 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 the said lorries. There were pits dug at the left side of the road leading from signal up to Kakatiya University police station and every vehicle has to go slow from Kakatiya University police station to signal. But PW2 denied that the alleged lorry was going in slow and the driver of the lorry did not apply sudden brakes, but the deceased came high speed he himself hit from the back side of the lorry and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Further, PW5 who is the Investigating Officer who admitted that the scene of offence was busy area. He further admitted that the accident took place at 10.30 p.m. The scene of offence is not a national highway. The crime vehicle was a state permitted vehicle.
34.As seen the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 and the facts elicited by the learned Counsel for the accused, it is contended by the learned
Counsel for the accused that the vehicle which was proceeding prior to the vehicle maintain a distance of 50 feet, the motorcyclist who himself negligent ind riving the motorcycle dashed to the lorry. He also further contended that the accident place having pits and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.
35.As seen the evidence of PW1 that he came to know through LW5-
M.Ravi that his son met with road accident caused by a lorry at T.B.
Hospital near KUC X-road. The evidence of PW2 discloses that due to 19 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 applying sudden brakes by the driver of the lorry, the deceased who was proceeding behind the lorry dashed to the lorry fell down and sustained injuries. But the evidence of PW2 is not at all disclosing that he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and further it is not at all disclosing that though there is no necessity to apply sudden brakes, but the driver of the lorry applied sudden brakes. Further, the learned Counsel
for the accused contended that back side of the lorry, there was a caution
to away 50 feet to the said lorry. He also further submitted that there were pit dug at the left side of the scene of offence. Admittedly, the accident took place at 10.30 p.m., and the alleged scene of offence was a public way. It is not the case of PW2 that the said lorry was proceeding in high speed. Further, it was also admitted by PW2 that every vehicle has to go slow from Kakatiya University police station to signal. Further, it is not the case of PW2 that the deceased was maintaining some distance from the crime vehicle.
36.Now, as seen the Rule 23 of the Road Regulations 1989 which discloses that a driver of the motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision, if the vehicle in front and suddenly slowdown or stop.
20 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
37.As seen the evidence of PW2 that the deceased was driving the motorcycle at sufficient distance from the crime vehicle. As seen the evidence of PW2 is not at all disclosing that the deceased vehicle was surrounded by other vehicles. Therefore, as seen the Rule 23 of the Road
Regulations 1989 discloses that the vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep a sufficient distance from other vehicle to avoid collision.
38.Therefore, as seen the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 that this Court found that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
39.In view of the above discussions, this Court held in view that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged substance of charges levelled against the accused person.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
40.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of The Code of Criminal
Procedure for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled after expiry of appeal time, as per Section 437A of The
Code of Criminal Procedure. The unmarked case property i.e. Lorry 21 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015 bearing No.AP23 U5499 which was already given to its owner towards interim custody shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.
(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer, after his correction, pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 10th day of August, 2022).
Sd/- A.Kumara Swamy
III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, HANUMAKONDA
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:
PW1-P.Anand/de-facto complainant andNone father of the deceased PW2-Velpugonda Sanjeevaiah/eye witness PW3-Yadda Krishna Murthy/owner of the crime vehicle PW4-T.Iylaiah/panch witness for inquest PW5-S.Venkatesh/Investigating Officer PW6-Jannu Bixapathi/photographer PW7-Dr.Shaik Khaja Mohinuddin/who conducted autopsy
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex-P1 is the report lodged by PW1. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex-P3 is the inquest panchanama. Ex-P4 is the FIR. Ex-P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex-P6 are the photographs. Ex-P7 are two photographs and one CD. Ex-P8 is the PME report.
FOR DEFENCE:
- NIL - 22 OF 22 C.C.NO.693 OF 2015
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
- NIL -
Sd/- A.Kumara Swamy
III-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS, HANUMAKONDA