Page- 1 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT RAJANNA
SIRCILLA.
Present: SRI A. PRAVEEN,
Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Rajanna Sircilla.
Monday, the 5 th day of February, 2024
CALENDAR CASE NO.781 OF 2016
Between:
The state represented through SubInspector of Police, Police Station, Yellareddypet.
......Complainant
And
Juvvadi Ananda Rao, S/o Chandrasekhar Rao, age: 47 years, R/o Thadoor village of Sircilla Mandal, driver of lorry bearing No.AP16/TT/8525.
...Accused
This case coming before me on 25.01.2024 for final hearing in the presence of APP for State and in the presence of Sri T.Parsharamulu, LegalAid Counsel for the accused; and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, the court made the following:
:: JUDGMENT ::
1.The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sircilla filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.107 of 2016 for the offenses punishable under Sections 304A 337 of the Indian Penal Code (in short (The IPC).
Page- 2 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 2.0. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the alleged offence is occurred on 27.06.2016 at about 18:30 hours, near New Bus Stand,
Yellareddypet village; that on 27.06.2016 at about 19:40 hours, the complainant/Mohd.Asif, S/o late Ishaq, age: 24 years, R/o
Yellareddypet came to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is working as Assistant Business Manager in Subhanandini
Finance, Sircilla and one Dayi Bhaskar is also working in finance company along with him; that on 27.06.2016 at evening there was a meeting in the finance company for which he along with Dayi Bhaskar left towards Sircilla on Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.TS02EL 7785, that he was riding the motorcycle while Bhaskar was sat as pillion rider on the motorcycle; that at about 18:30 hours, when they reached nearby new buys stand, Yellareddypet, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP16TT8525 drove in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed his motorcycle from rear side resulting of which the pillion rider Bhaskar sustained severe injuries to his waist of both right and left side and testicles while he was sustained injuries to his right foot and right leg; that one Md.Chand Pasha and
Sammanthula Anil who were present at the scene, shifted them to
Ashwini Hospital, Yellareddypet for treatment, but at about 19:00
Page- 3 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 hours, Dayi Bhaskar succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital, that on enquiry the lorry driver name revealed as Juvvadi Ananda Rao, R/o Tadur village of Sircilla Mandal, thereby requested to take necessary action.
2.1.Basing on the above complaint from LW1/Mohd.Asif,
LW15/D.Chandrashekar, Probationary SubInspector of Police attached to Yellareddypet Police Station had registered a case in
Cr.No.107 of 2016 under Sections 304A, 337 IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he rushed to the scene of offence, secured LW8/Marepu Shankar and LW9/Jogula Sudarshan and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in their presence in crime details form and drew rough sketch of the scene, later, he rushed to the Government Area Hospital, Sircilla, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW10/Sheela
Balaraju and LW11/Pattu Mallaiah and incorporated the descriptive particulars of the dead body of the deceased in the inquest report, got photographed the dead body of the deceased with the help of
LW7/Kamarapu Venu; that the dead body was subjected for postmortem examination in the same hospital, thereafter, he examined
LWs.1 to 7 and recorded their statements and referred LW1 to the
Government Area Hospital, Sircilla for treatment and medical
Page- 4 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 certificate.
2.2.On his requisition, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sircilla inspected the crime vehicle opining that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. LW12/Dr.Shravan, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Sircilla conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opining that the death of the deceased was due to polytrauma with multiple injuries to ribs and internal bleed (hemorrhage). LW13/Dr.Muralidhar Rao, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Sircilla treated LW1, issued medical certificate stating that LW1 sustained simple injuries.
2.3.Subsequently, LW15 had served notice to the accused, accordingly the accused appeared before him in the police station on 02.07.2016, on interrogation, accused admitted his guilt, after that he advised the accused to appear before the court on receipt of summons.
2.4.Later, LW16/B.Upender, SubInspector of Police, P.S.,
Yellareddypet took over further investigation, verified the investigation done by LW15 and found it on correct lines. Then, he rushed to the scene of offence, observed it keenly, later he examined the statements of LW1 to LW7. After completion of investigation, he filed charges sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
Page- 5 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 304A and 337 IPC.
3.Upon consideration of the material placed before the court, the cognizance was taken against the accused for the offenses punishable under Sections 304A and 337 IPC.
4.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to him, as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. The accused was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C explaining the accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 337 IPC is read over and explained to him in vernacular language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to
PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.
7. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused person is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his vernacular language, which he denied and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. But he did not choose to lay any evidence on his behalf.
8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the Accused.
9. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by proving the substance of
Page- 6 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 accusation for the offenses charged under Sections 304A and 337 IPC against the accused person?
10. POINT:
11.The prosecution case is in nutshell that the alleged accident occurred on 27.06.2016 at about 18:30 hours, near New Bus Stand,
Yellareddypet village. According to the complainant/LW1/Mohd.Asif, the accused drove the lorry bearing registration No.AP/TT/8525 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the Honda
Active motorcycle bearing registration No.TS/02/7785 belonging to the deceased/Dayi Bhaskar, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries to his waist of both right and left side and testicles and while he was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries and the complainant is riding the motorcycle also sustained simple injuries and on inquiry the name of driver of lorry as Juvvadi Ananda Rao.
12. The prosecution is required to prove the alleged offences, as hereunder:
Section 304A IPC – Causing death by negligence: Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 337 IPC – Causing hurt by act endangering life or
personal safety of others: Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
Page- 7 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 six months, or with fine which may extent to five hundred rupees, or with both.
13.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to
PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The evidence of chief & cross examination all witnesses examined, as discussed in detail hereunder:
14.PW1 who is the complainant and injured deposed that on 27.06.2016, while he was working in Subanandini Chit Funds, as
Asst. Business Manager at about 6.30 pm, he along with the deceased/Dayi Bhaskar was going to his office which was at Sircilla on
Honda Activa No.TS02EL7785to attend a meeting from
Yellareddypet, at that time, the crime lorry No.AP16TT8525 which was coming in high speed and in negligent manner dashed his bike from back side, due to which he and the deceased fell down from the bike and his friend, the deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his left waist and also to his private parts and he also sustained simple injuries on his right hand and right leg. PW.1 further deposed that thereafter, PW3/S.Anil and LW6/Md.Chand Pasha who were present there and took them to the Ashwini Hospital, Yellareddypet, but the doctors advised the deceased to take to the Government Hospital,
Sircilla, while on the way, the deceased succumbed to injuries, after that he lodged complaint Ex.P1 in the police station.
Page- 8 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
In crossexamination, PW1 deposed that at around 6.00 pm, they started from Yellareddypet to Sircilla, they had meeting on the day of alleged incident at about 7.30 pm, that his friend/deceased came to his home on his bike and they started at about 6.00 pm from his resident on the bike of his friend/deceased; that his house is near to
Yellareddypet bus stop. He admitted that the area at bus stop is over crowed and busy area. He denied the suggestion that he does not know which vehicle dashed their bike as he was riding the Scooty.
15.PW2 who is the sister of the deceased deposed that he used to work in Subanandini Chit Funds, as Asst. Business Manager, at about 6.00 pm, her brother left for attending a meeting in the office along with PW1, thereafter, she received information from PW3 and LW6 stating that her brother met with an accident, then, they went to the
Ashwini Hospital, found him with bleeding injuries, at his waist and testicles, as his condition was serious, he was shifting to Sircilla
Hospital, he was succumbed to injuries, on the way and her brother went on the bike to his office along with PW1, and she came to know that her brother’s Scooty was dashed by the lorry No.AP16TT8525 and both PW3 and LW6 were admitted her brother in the hospital and
PW1 also sustained injuries.
Page- 9 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
In crossexamination, PW2 deposed that at the time of alleged incident, she was at her home, that she came to know about the accident through LW5/S.Anil and LW6/Chand Pasha; that she saw her brother after going to the hospital. She admitted that she does not know the person who dashed her brother’s Scooty on the day of alleged incident and further that she only came to know about the crime vehicle/lorry through LW5/Anil and LW6/Chand Pasha. She denied that her brother himself fell down from his Scooty.
16.PW3 who is the eyewitness to the alleged accident deposed that on 26.06.2016 at evening hours, when he along with LW6/Md.Pasha went to have tea, at that time, they noticed that one lorry was coming from Kamareddy towards Sircilla in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Scooty from behind on which PW1 and the deceased were there, then, they shifted them to the Ashwini Hospital and the deceased/Bhaskar died and PW1 also sustained injuries on his legs and shoulder, that he saw the person who drove the lorry and he is standing in the court hall.
In crossexamination, PW3 deposed that at 6.00 pm on the day of alleged incident, he went to near to the scene of offence to have tea along with LW6/Md.Pasha. He deposed that he does not know for what purpose the deceased/Bhaskar and PW1 were going on the
Page- 10 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
Scooty. He admitted that the scene of offence is near to the bus stand.
He denied that accused had not driven his lorry in a rash and negligent manner.
17.PW4 who is another eyewitness to the alleged incident deposed similar lines as deposed by PW3.
In crossexamination, PW4 deposed that on the day of alleged incident as it is evening hours, he went to the tea stall along with PW3 to have tea. He deposed that he does not know for what purpose the deceased and PW1 were going on the Scooty. He denied that accused had not driven his lorry in a rash and negligent manner.
18.PW5 who is the photographer deposed that on 28.08.2016, at the request of the police concerned, he went to the Government
Hospital, Sircilla and took photos of one dead body, that he came to know that the accident was occurred between a lorry and bike. Ex.P2, photos three along with CD.
In crossexamination, PW5 admitted that he went to the
Government Area Hospital, Sircilla and took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased on the request of the police, Yellareddypet.
He deposed that he knows the case relating to one accident.
19.PW6 who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that in the year 2016, at new bus stand,
Page- 11 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
Yellareddypet in front of the Lasya Photo Studio, the police called him to the above place along with LW9/Jogula Sudarshan, police drafted rough sketch in his presence, later he signed on Ex.P3.
In crossexamination, PW6 deposed that he was standing at new bus stand, Yellareddypet, at the time police called him to the accident for preparation of crime detail form. He denied that no crime detail form panchanama was conducted before him.
20.PW7 who is the panch witness for inquest over the dead body of the deceased deposed that about 7 or 8 years ago, on one day, the police called him to the Government Area Hosptial, Sircilla, and they conducted inquest panchanama of deceased/Dayi Bhaskar, he saw the deceased, found injuries on him and he signed on Ex.P4.
In crossexamination, PW7 deposed that on the day, he went to the Government Area Hospital, Sircilla for seeing the deceased body.
He denied that he signed on Ex.P4 without knowing anything, on the insistence of the police.
21.PW8 states that he received requisition from the Station
House Officer, Yellareddypet on 29.06.2016 at about 10:30 am for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/D.Bhaskar, he found the injuries: 1) abrasion 20 x 10 cm over the chest region of right side,2) abrasion 30 x 15 cm over the
Page- 12 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 right side of abdominal, 3) contusion 5 x 5 cm over the right side of abdominal, 4) abrasion 8 x 8 cm over the scrotum, 5) laceration 4 x 2 cm over the left thigh region, 6) fracture of the right side ribs/Nos.4th to 6th, 7) bleeding clots present in the pleural cavity, 8) rupture of the right lung, 9) bleeding clots in the peritoneal cavity, 10) bleeding clot in the testicle; that case of death was polytrauma with multiple injuries and internal hemorrhage. Ex.P5 is the postmortem examination report.
In crossexamination, PW8 deposed that he has conducted postmortem examination at Government Area Hospital, Sircilla. He denied that there was chance to if the deceased falls from bike skidding, he may be received the same injuries.
22.PW9 who is the then AMVI, Sircilla deposed that on 28.06.2016, he received a requisition from the police concerned, and accordingly she inspected the lorry bearing No.AP16TT8525 on the same day at about 2.10 pm at Police Station and in Ex.P6 report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.
In crossexemption, PW9 deposed that she has seen the crime vehicle at Yellareddypet police station. She deposed that she does not know who brought the crime vehicle to the police station.
Page- 13 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
23.PW10 who treated PW1 states that he has received one requisition from police Yellareddypet, on 27.06.2016 at 8.30 pm and accordingly he examined PW1 and found the injuries: 1) crush injury to the right foot and 2) no bone injury as per orthopedician, which are simple in nature, thereafter, he issued Ex.P7/medical certificate.
In crossexamination, PW10 admitted that if the victim goes speedily by running on any two wheeler and fell down by skidding may receive same injury.
24.PW11 who is the then Investigating Officer deposed about the manner of investigation, examining the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, collected MVI report and MC, marked Ex.P8 through him and issued Section 41A Cr.P.C notice and handed over the case details to his successor and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 304
A and 337 IPC.
In crossexamination, PW11 deposed that PW1 is a relative of deceased/D.Bhaskar. He deposed that immediately after the accident, he rushed to the scene of offence and one driver brought the crime vehicle to the police station. He deposed that he filed requisition to the
Motor Vehicle Inspector and on the same day, the MVI came to the
Page- 14 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 police station and inspected the crime vehicle on 28.06.2016, gave report to them. His evidence is quite natural.
25.To bring a cause of homicide u/sec.304A of IPC the prosecution must prove the following conditions as held by Hon’ble
Apex court in its expression State of Panjab Vs. Balwinder Singh and others reported in (2012) 2 SCC 182.
1. The accused must have caused such death 2.That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and it did not amount to culpable homicide.
2.In order to attract sec.304A of IPC the death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without intervention of another act of negligence. It must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may be have been the acusa sine qua non. There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act. The cause of death is the primary point and negligent and rash act is the next point. Sec 304 of IPC presupposes the negligent act.
3.On careful scrutiny of the material evidence available on record, the first and foremost ingredient of section 304A IPC i.e., “There must be death of the person in question “ is proved by the
Page- 15 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 7, 8 and 11 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.P1,2,4 and 5 which reveal that the deceased by name Dayi.Bhaskar died. The second essential ingredient is that the accused must have caused such death”, in order to prove it the prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye and injured witness it. Witness PW1 clearly stated that on the alleged incident day he along with the deceased were going to his office which was at Sircill, on Honda Activa to attend a meeting form Yellareddypet. At that time the crime vehicle lorry which was coming in high speed and in a negligent manner dashed his
honda activa from back side. Due to which himself and the
deceased were fallen down from the bike and his friend who is a deceased sustained injuries on his left waist and also to his private parts and he also sustained simple injuries on his right hand and right leg. Due to the injuries his friend died. PW3 and
PW4 are the eye witnesses of the incident and who shifted PW1 and deceased to the hospital. PWs.1, 3 and 4 identified the accused who stands in the court hall, who drove the lorry at the time of accident.
3.Now, let us see the next and 3rd essential ingredient that such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not
Page- 16 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 amount to culpable homicide is able to establish by the prosecution. The crime vehicle Inspector, i.e., PW9 and Ex.P6, he opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 clearly testified that the said lorry came with fast speed and dashed to the PW1, deceased’s two wheeler. High speed is a relative term. A vehicle which is driven in a congested road even at a speed of 30 Km, may constitute high speed, but driving a vehicle at a speed higher than 30 Km, in a open road may not be considered driving at high speed. It would depend upon nature and situation of read, concentration of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on it and may such other relevant factors. In the case at hand, vehicle which was being driven on the road at, nearby new bus stand, Yellareddypet.
26.The evidence of PW1 to PW8 and PW11 would prove the fact that the death of the deceased person was due to road accident and the evidence of PW9 coupled with Ex. P6 would show that the crime vehicle was functioning efficiently and where it is proved by evidence on record that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle in question at relevant time and he caused the death by rash negligent driving he would be liable to be convicted U/ s 304A. The evidence of
Page- 17 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 the prosecution witnesses is consistent and cogent and the statements of the witnesses if read as a whole should certainly prove the fact that the accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses do not necessarily demolished. Though the prosecution witnesses have been crossexamined by defence, all the witnesses stood the crossexamination firmly. Except the suggestions and denials made by the defence, no evidence could be elicited by the defence from the prosecution witnesses which could shake their veracity.
27.Learned defence counsel has argued that the deceased and
PW1 fell down from bike skidding by consuming alcohol and the same they received injuries, due to that injuries the deceased died, but PW8, who conducted PME over the dead body of deceased/D. Bhaskar, found multiple injuries, the cause of death was ploy trauma with multiple injuries and internal hemorrhage, in cross examination he stated that there was no chance to get such multiple fractures with such simple injuries to the dead body, if the same falls from motorcycle by skid down. And the injured eye witness PW1 and the eye witnesses PW3 and PW4 testified that due to rashly and negligently the accused drove the crime vehicle and dashed PW1 and deceased two
Page- 18 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 wheeler due to that PW1 sustained injuries, deceased sustained injuries , due to that injuries he died.
28.It is expected for a driver to be cautious and watch the roads side, PW1, injured rides the two wheeler in front of the crime vehicle, why the accused not controlled the crime vehicle at the time of driving, if the accused not controlled the said vehicle why he drove speedily, he drove the said vehicle with high speed without controlling hence the crime vehicle dashed PW1 and deceased/injured vehicle.
Unshaken evidence of eye witness shows that the crime vehicle was driven at a rash and negligence with high speed .
“Negligence or rashness is essential elements and rashness means doing an act with consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with hope that it will not and negligence is a breach of duty imposed in law.
29.The Honb’le Supreme Court of India in its expression Jacob
Mathew Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2005 Sc 3180 held that in criminal law negligence or recklessness must be of such a high degree as to be “Gross”. The impression rash or negligent act as occurring in
Sec. 304A of IPC has to be read as qualified by the word “Grossly.”
30.Therefore, the expression rash or negligent act has to be read as qualified by the word. “Grossly.” The criminality lies in running
Page- 19 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. In this case, evidence would prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle with indifference as to the consequences though he was aware of the fact that the vehicle dashed.
31.Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable Neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out to which the charge has arise, it was the imperative duty of the accused person adopted as held by Honb’le Supreme court in its expression
Rathnashalvan, Vs. state of Karnataka reported in AIR 207 SC 1064.
32.The expression negligence means lack of due care expected from a person in a given circumstances. The accused being the driver of the crime vehicle/lorry is ought to have known that when he was driving at over speed, he should know how to control vehicle at high speed, he should exercise due care by applying breaks or to slow down the vehicle. PWs.1,3 and 4 testified that the accused drove the said lorry. No doubt that the word high speed or rash and negligent is a relative term but the motor vehicle inspector report would show that the vehicle does not have any defects in the vehicle and in all probabilities the accident would have occurred due to negligence or
Page- 20 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 rashness and the materials placed before the court by the prosecution would establish the rashness or negligence of the accused as such negligence is culpable or gross.
33. IPC 337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety or others.
34.Basing on the above discussion, accused person’s rash and negligent act is proved, as per PW1 evidence, he along with his friend/deceased, when they reached nearby new bus stand,
Yellareddypet, the driver of lorry , drove in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to his motor cycle from rear side resulting of which PW1 and pillion rider/Bhaskar/deceased sustained injuries,
PW.10 is the doctor who treated PW1 and issued MC. Ex.P7, by found the following injuries: 1.Crush injury to the right foot. 2.No bone injury as per orthopedician, which are simple in nature. That clearly shows that PW1 received simple injuries in the said accident and the ingredients of the IPC 337 proved, already discussed the accused drove said crime vehicle rashly and negligently as to cause simple injuries/hurt to PW1.
Page- 21 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
35.Learned Defence counsel raised some minor discrepancies.
But it is well settled law that is merely because there are some discrepancies itself is not ground to reject the evidence of a witness in toto and normal discrepancies are those which are due to normal errors of observation, of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, which always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be, normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of prosecution case.
36.The mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence of witnesses, and the mental faculties of a human being vary from individual to individual and witness might have confused but it is not a material defect to brush aside their entire evidence. (See. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its expression Brahma Swaroop, Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
AIR 2011 SC 280)
37.On reading evidence of the witness a whole appears to have a ring of truth, the minor discrepancies on the vital matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out the context here from the evidence, attaching
Page- 22 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 importance to some errors committed not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as whole.
38.It is therefore found that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused under section Sections 304A and 337 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, the accused person is found guilty of the alleged offences committed by him on the relevant day. Accused is liable to punishment.
39. In the result, the accused person is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 337 IPC and he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation, seen, corrected and by pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of February, 2024.
Principal Junior Civil Judgecum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Rajanna Sircilla.
40.The accused person is questioned with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed. He pleaded mercy and stating that “he has to say nothing, pleaded mercy about the punishment,” if he was sent jail, his family would suffer and prayed this court to take lenient view
Page- 23 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 in imposing sentence the offences against the accused is under sections 304A 337 IPC and accused person age is more than 21 years as such he is not entitled to the benefits either under section 360 of
Cr.P.C or provisions of P.O. Act.
41.Considering the galloping trend in road accidents in India and its devastating consequences the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India almost about two decades ago in Dalbir Singh, Vs. State of Haryana, (2000), 5 SCC 82 held that while considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver should not take a chance thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the court. The following principles laid down in that decision are very relevant:
42.When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of Automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to
Page- 24 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 maintain deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude whom to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.
43.Bearing mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under
Section 304A as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single mo ment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle, in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted the offene and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court. He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death
Page- 25 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016 of human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle, he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of Automobiles.
44.Therefore, the benevolent provisions of probation of offenders act cannot be invoked.
45.However, in view of the mercy pleaded by the accused person, facts and circumstances of the case, sentencing the accused as follows will meet the ends of justice.
46.Having considered the submissions made by the accused person, this court is of the view that no lenient view could be taken against the accused convict considering the gravity of the offence and also the unruly behavior on the part of the accused person that he negligently and rashly drove the crime vehicle with high speed and caused the alleged accident, as a result the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury and PW1 sustained simple injuries in the alleged accident, and the accused drove the lorry rashly and negligently with high speed and dashed the Scooty. Unless stem measures are taken in the case of this nature, the accused would take a chance of thinking that even if he is convicted, he would be dealt with leniently by the court.
Page- 26 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
47.The accused/Convict is therefore sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR for the offence punishable
U/s 304A IPC and also sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ (Rupees one thousand only) and indefault in payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
48.The accused/convicted further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS and pay a fine of
Rs.200/ (Rupees two hundred only) for the offence under section 337 IPC and indefault in payment of fine, to suffer simple imprison ment for a period of one month.
49.If the accused/convicted involved in any other offences, all sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any, shall be set of under section 428 of Cr.P.C the accused person is informed about his right to appeal before the Honb’le Court of Sessions, Rajanna
Sircilla. The offence is directed to furnish faircopy of the Judgment to the accused/convict person as per Sec. 363 Cr.P.C R/w Rule 72 of
Criminal Rules of Practice at free of cost. The accused person is also informed that if he is in need of LegalAid, he can approach the
Hon’ble District Legal Services Authority, Rajanna Sircilla.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of February, 2024.
Principal Junior Civil Judgecum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
Page- 27 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016
Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Rajanna Sircilla.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: PW1:Mohd.Asif. PW2:Dayi Saritha PW3:Shyamanthula Anil. PW4:Md.Chand Pash. PW5: Kamarapu Venu. PW6:Marepu Shankar. PW7: Sheela Balaraju PW8:Dr.V.Shravan. PW9: R.Nagalaxmi. PW10:Dr.M.Muralidhar Rao. PW11: D.Chandrashekar
For Defense: None
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Complaint of PW1 to police. Ex.P2:Three photographs along with CD. Ex.P3: Crime detail form panchanama. Ex.P4: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P5:Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.P6: MVI Report. Ex.P7: Medical Certificate of PW1. Ex.P8: First Information Report.
Principal Junior Civil Judge cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Rajanna Sircilla.
Page- 28 of 28 Fair CC No.781 of 2016