IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT ALAMPUR
Thursday, this the 16th day of September, 2021.
PRESENT: Smt. A.Radhika, Judl.First Class Magistrate, Alampur.
C.C.No.50 of 2015 Between:
The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Alampur P.S. …Complainant. A N D
Boya Vikram Naidu, S/o Rama Chadariah Naidu, age: 22 years, Occ: Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-22-Y-0629, R/o Bairampally, H/o Gundimalla Village. …Accused.
This case coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of
A.P.P for State and of Sri T.Narayana Reddy, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T:
1.This is a case of road accident alleged against the accused. The Sub-
Inspector of Police, P.S. Alampur had filed charge sheet against the above accused in Cr.No.11/2005 for the offence punishable U/S 304-A of IPC with a prayer to punish the accused in the alleged offence.
2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The accused is the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP22Y0629. The PW.1 is defacto complainant and wife of Deceased. On 22.01.2015 at morning hours the deceased left from his house and went to sandy market, Alampur. On the same day at evening hours the accused who is the driver of crime vehicle proceeded to
Gundimalla village from Alampur with empty load and PW.4&5 and other students were sat in the trolley, meantime the deceased stopped the said tractor in Alampur and boarded into the trolley of the tractor, on the way near peddawagu which is located in the outskirts of Alampur, near K.M.
Stone No. 216, the accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner, due to high speed the deceased who sat in trolley fell between 2 tractor and trolley and tires of the trolley passed on the legs of the deceased, as a result the deceased received bleeding injuries to his both legs, the accident was witnessed by PW.2, 4&5 and other passengers, the accused stopped his tractor and on seeing of injuries to deceased he left from the scene with his tractor and remaining passengers including PW.4&5, immediately PW.2 informed the same to the deceased family members, the
PW.1, LW.3 & PW.3 shifted the deceased to C.H.C. Alampur through an auto and after first aid at C.H.C. Alampur the deceased was shifted to G.G.H
Kurnool, while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to injuries at 2130 hours. On the next day i-e., on 23-01-2015, at 800 hours, Pw.1 lodged a written report with the police. Basing on which FIR in Cr.No.11/2015 was registered U/Sec. 304-A IPC. Police took up investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence and drew up rough sketch map and also held inquest over the dead body of deceased and collected PME report of deceased. On 27.01.2015, PW.6/Owner of the crime vehicle produced the accused before PW.7, the accused admitted his guilt, then police affected the arrest of accused, accused was sent to judicial custody and crime vehicle was investigated by the Motor vehicle inspector, and sent his report. Basing on investigation, the Investigation officer came to conclusion that accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A
IPC and filed charge sheet. Hence the case.
3.This case was taken on file as C.C.No.50/2015 for the offence punishable under section 304-A IPC.
4.On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.The accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, substance of accusations for the offence Under Section 304-A IPC explained to him, for which accused denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8 on its behalf. The learned A.P.P. has given up the evidences Lws.2, 3 & 9, hence their evidences are closed.
3
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec 313 of Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidences of prosecution witnesses appeared against the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence and hence defence side evidence is closed.
8.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel.
9.The learned A.P.P contended that there is a touch stone of consistency in the evidence of prosecution which is watertight and witness/eye witness categorically pleaded that accused as driver of crime vehicle and also specifically testified and proved about the rash and negligent act of driving of accused and that prosecution has proved the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for that the accused is deserve to be convicted. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused contended that a false case is filed against the accused only for the purpose of claiming compensation and accused is innocent. He further submitted that the IO has not shown the crime vehicle in the scene of offence and it was very vague, it is not describing the manner of accident. He further submitted that the MVI clearly admitted in his cross examination that he never visited the scene of offence, the road at the scene of offence is very narrow, none of the witness deposed the trailer bearing number of the tractor and he also contended that the
PW.4&5 who are the eye witness, who travelled in the trailer are turned hostile and there is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Hence, pray the court to acquit the accused by giving benefit of doubt.
10.Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has establish the guilt of accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt?
11. The prosecution has to prove the following ingredients for the offence
U/Sec. 304-A IPC.
4
1.Death of the person
2. Accused has caused such death,
3. Such act of accused was rash or negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide.
P O I N T:-
12.To substantiate the case of the prosecution, as stated supra the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Pw.1 is the wife of deceased and complainant, Pw.2 is the eye witness, Pw.3 is the circumstantial witness and relative of deceased, PW.4 is the panch witness for inquest report, PW.5&12 are eye witness and inmates of trailer of the tractor, PW.6 is the owner of the crime vehicle and paternal uncle of accused, PW.7 is the second investigation officer, Pw.8 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. PW.9 is the M.V.I., PW.10 is the Medical Officer who conducted the P.M.E., PW.11 is the first I.O. PW.13 I.O. who filed charge sheet, PW.14 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. With regards to
Exhibits; Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is inquest report. Ex.P3 is signature of
PW.8 on crime detail form. Ex.P4 is M.V.I. Report. Ex.P5 is P.M.E. Report of the deceased. Ex.P6 is FIR. Ex.P7 is Crime details form. Ex.P8 is signature of
Pw.14 on crime detail form.
EVIDENCE ON RECORD:
13.(i) Now it has to be seen whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to prove the commission of offence by the accused as alleged.
Evidence of PW1: Kamtham Laxmi Kanthamma corroborated the contents of report i.e., Ex.P1. According to her at about 4 years ago her husband died in a road traffic accident, at about 4 years ago at 4:30 P.M., she had come to know that her husband met with an accident near the stream at the outskirts of Alampur and Bairampally. Immediately she rushed to the scene and found her husband with severe bleeding injuries, where her husband narrated that her husband was boarded into a tractor of accused at Alampur, when the tractor reached a stream at the outskirts of Alampur and Bairampally, the 5 accused drove the crime vehicle in high speed, as a result he fall down on the road and the wheels of the trailer passed away on his legs, the accused left the scene without stopping the vehicle, she also testified that, shifting of the deceased to C.H.C. Alampur and after first aid he was shifted to G.G.H.
Kurnool for better treatment and succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 9:30 PM. She confirmed lodging of the report to the police and she also confirmed the Ex.P1 is her report and she further deposed that she was examined by the police. During her cross-examination she was admitted that she was not an eye witness to the accident and she further admitted how many members were travelled on tractor and she said that she did not stated crime vehicle number to the police and she denied the suggestion that her husband died due to unknown vehicle and accused never committed any offence.
ii) PW.2 who is the eye witness to the accident deposed that at about 4 years when he was proceeding from Gondimalla to Alampur in his tractor loaded stones/slabs, when he was reached near Alampur outskirts i.e.,
Peddavagu stream, he witnessed the accident. He further deposed that the accused drove the tractor with high speed due to which, the deceased who sat in the tractor fell down on the road, the trailer of the tractor passed away on the legs of the deceased, immediately himself and the accused get down from the vehicle and found the deceased with severe blood injuries and he informed the same to LW.3 and other family members and all of them shifted the deceased to C.H.C. Alampur and from the C.H.C, Alampur, the deceased shifted G.G.H. Kurnool for better treatment. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that LW.3&5 are his relatives. He said that he saw the crime vehicle at a distance of 100 meters and admitted the suggestion put to him that he saw the accident and the deceased was fell down from the trailer and deceased was sat in trailer and he further said that there are more 5 school children in the trailer of the tractor along with deceased and he further admitted that the scene of offence is single road and admitted that 6 the school children did not get down from trailer of crime vehicle and admitted that he never stated number of the crime vehicle to the police. He denied the suggestion put to him that since PW.1, LW.3 & 5 are his relatives as such he deposing false.
iii) PW.3 who is circumstantial witness deposed that the deceased was his junior paternal uncle, on 22-01-2015 at 4:30 PM he was informed by the
PW.2 about the accident caused by the accused to the deceased, immediately he rushed to the scene of offence i.e., Peddavagu stream. He also testified that himself and PW.1 found the deceased on road with injuries and shifted to C.H.C, Alampur and from there to G.G.H. Kurnool for better treatment. On the same day he succumbed to injuries. During his cross- examination he admitted that he was not an eye-witness.
(iv) PW.4 who is the panch witness for alleged inquest report testified and confirmed conducting of inquest panchanama over a dead body of the deceased Pedda Nagaraju. He further confirmed the presence of another witness LW.9 Madiletti at the time of conducting panchanama. He further deposed that during the inquest he found the injuries on the left hand shoulder, left elbow, wrist and bleeding injuries on two legs of the deceased.
Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama which was marked through PW.4. During cross- examination of PW-4 nothing was elicited by the defence counsel in favour of the defence.
(v) Pw.9, B. Narendra Naik, MVI, stated that on 27.01.2015 he received requisition from Alampur PS in Cr.No.11/2015. Accordingly he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.AP22Y0628 and its trailer AP22Y0629 and issued the MVI report which is marked as Ex.P4, wherein, he opined that the accident occurred not due to mechanical defect.
(vi) Pw.10 Dr.Y.K.C. Rangaiah, Asst. Professor KMC, Kurnool stated that on 23.01.2015 on requisition of police, Alampur he conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Pedda Nagaraju and he issued PME report of the 7 said Deceased person. The cause of death of said Deceased person is due to multiple injuries. Ex.P5 is PME report of Deceased Pedda Nagaraju.
(vii) That PW.5&12 who are the alleged eye witness and inmates of the crime vehicle and who sat in the trailer of the crime vehicle at the time of the alleged accident deposed in same lines that they do not know anything about the case and they did not examined by the police.
(viii) PW.6 the owner of the crime vehicle stated that he had come to know the accident and involvement of his tractor in a road traffic accident through police. He further testified that he had given his tractor to the accused and accused is his brother’s son. He further said that he does not how the accident occurred.
(xi) PW.8&14, who are the panch witness for the alleged scene of offence panchanama did not support the case of the prosecution. According to them police never conducted panchanama in their presence and police simply obtained their signatures at police station on written papers. Ex.P3&8 are their signatures on scene of offence panchanama. Though they were cross-examined, nothing could elicited by the learned APP in favour of the prosecution.
(x) PW.11. who is 1st Investigating officer, stated about his role of investigation i-e., receiving of written report from PW.1, registering of case in crime 11/2015 and issuing of FIR/Ex.P6, examination and recording of statements of PW1 & 2, LW 2 & 3, visiting of scene of offence and conducting of scene of panchanama and drew up rough sketch in presence of PW8 and
LW11 and Ex.P7 is crime detail form. He also deposed about visiting of
G.G.H. Kurnool and securing the presence of PW4 & LW9 and conducting of inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and preparation of inquest report in the presence of witness and Ex.P2 is inquest report and during his cross-examination he admitted that PW1 is not eye witness to the crime and Ex.P1 does not contains the tractor bearing number, but not 8 contains the trailer number. He further stated that he did not mention the crime vehicle number in crime detail form.
(xi) PW.7 the 2nd investigating officer stated about his role of investigation that is receiving of C.D. file from previous I.O. and verification of investigation done by him and found on proper lines. Later he visited
Bairampalli village where he examined and recorded statements of PW5&12 who are the eye witness to the crime. He also stated accused along with crime vehicle was produced before him by Pw.6 and accused admitted his guilt. Later he released the accused on station bail, as the offence is bailable in nature. During his cross-examination he admitted that none of the witnesses stated about the trailer bearing number. He denied the suggestion put to him that the accident occurred due to unknown vehicle but not due to crime vehicle.
(xii) PW.13, the 3rd I.O. who filed charge sheet deposed his role of investigation i.e., receiving of C.D and filing of P.M.E Report and filing of the charge sheet.
14.In the foregoing paragraphs we have seen the prosecution proved the death of deceased Pedda Nagaraju by producing Ex.P2 Inquest report and P4
PME Report and examining Pw.1 to 4 and PW.10. Defence also not disputing the death of deceased, hence the prosecution successfully prove the first ingredient of offence, i.e., death of deceased.
15.The most crucial aspect to be decided in the accident cases is the identity. The prosecution must prove that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. The contention of defense is that the prosecution witnesses deposed falsely by implicating accused as the driver of crime vehicle for insurance benefit, for claiming of compensation only they depose false against the accused. In this case Pw.2 who is the material witness and known persons with the accused. So it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused as a driver of the crime 9 vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover, PW.6 who is the owner of the crime vehicle also deposed his tractor was involved in accident and he handed over the said tractor to the accused, so the amount the evidence of the crime vehicle also shows that involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident. The reasons best known to the defence they did not prefer to cross-examine the PW.6 who is the owner of the crime vehicle to discard his evidence.
16.Now the most important aspect is that whether the prosecution could able to establish the rash or negligent act of accused through its evidence.
The allegation of prosecution is that accused being the driver of crime vehicle drove it in high speed and negligently and caused death of deceased.
17.Now further aspect which needs to be decided is whether the death of deceased is caused of rash or negligent driving of accused who is alleged to be driver of crime vehicle on the fateful day. For this it is relevant to examine Ex.P1 report which is basis for registration of FIR for reason that this is first version of Pw.1 in Ex.P1 report, Pw.1 clearly mention that the deceased was her husband, her husband narrated the entire accident, but she is not the eye witness to the alleged accident. Therefore, her evidence cannot be used for identification as well as to prove rash or negligent act of the accused and which is caused to the death of the deceased.
18.As done earlier points it is always desirable to see once again the evidence of Pw.2, in their chief examination deposed that the accused is the driver of tractor drove the vehicle in high speed, as a result the deceased jumped from the tractor and fell down on the road, the tires of the trailer passed away on the both legs of the deceased. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of given case. It is the fact incapable being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examine in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the acts as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of 10 vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to a rash and negligent driving. Negligence means omissions to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the consideration which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which is prudent and reasonable person guided by similar consideration would not do.
19.The best test to elicit the truth is test of consistency and cross examination, herein this case, the material witness i.e., Pw.2 is happened to be eye witness clearly deposed that the crime vehicle was in high speed and the accused being driver of the crime vehicle drove in negligently which caused to the accident and the accused and the witness are known persons and nothing elicited in the cross examination to the doubt the presence of above witness at scene and defence do not denied the death of deceased in the accident, but during the cross-examination the witness has stated that he had seen the accident at a distance of 100 yards. Now it has to be test that whether a person who is coming at a distance of 100 yards in opposite direction can assess the high speed of the crime vehicle which is coming in opposite direction. In this regard, it is the specific case of the prosecution, the deceased was sat in a moving trolley because of the high speed and rash driving of the accused the deceased jumped from the trolley and fell down on the road, the tiers of the trolley are passed away on the legs of the deceased and caused severe injuries and finally last the life of the deceased.
In this case, it is also relevant to note that the trolley is empty trolley, some other children including PW5&12 are travelling in the same trailer and sat in the same trolley along with deceased at the relevant time of occurrence, but none of them got received any injuries and there is no evidence on the record to show that PW5&12 who are in the trolley at the time of accident got received injuries and there is no evidence on the record about such kind of high speed causes jumping from the trolley and falls on the road.
11
Especially when a person sitting in the trolley jumping from the trolley and falls on the road, it appears little bit doubt full and when such fell down is caused only due to high speed of crime vehicle more particularly none of them i.e., PW5&12 and other school children who are the inmates of the trolley fell down on the road due to the high speed of tractor, so is itself indicates and creates a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court about sitting of the deceased in the trolley itself and moreover, the trolley is a empty trolley, when a trolley is empty there would have been comfortable and sit in a trolley unlike loaded trolley, moreover, the PW2 had seen the occurrence at a distance of 100 yards more particularly in a opposite direction. It is might not be possible and asses the exact speed of the opposite vehicle especially from a reasonable distance. Therefore, in view of above circumstance and facts when the PW2’s visibility of occurrence is creates some doubt, this court feels that the evidence of PW2 requires some corroboration. Further, Pw.2 in his chief examination deposed that, the deceased was sat in the tractor and fell down from the tractor, but whereas, in his cross examination he admitted that deceased was sat in the trailer, therefore, there is an ambiguity in the evidence of Pw.2 with regards to that whether the deceased was sat either in tractor or trailer at the time of accident, the evidence of Pw.2 is contradicting with his 161 Cr.P.C statement with regards to where the deceased was sat at the time of accident.
Moreover in the present in hand PW5&12 who are the crucial eye witness and who are inmates of the crime vehicle did not support the case of prosecution and they did not state single word against the against and they totally denied the case of the prosecution. Further more in the present case in hand none of the witness including eye witness did not depose the crime vehicle bearing number and they fail to depose the involvement of crime vehicle in the accident at the relevant point of time. No doubt in this case, there is no dispute about the identity of the accused , but the prosecution has failed to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused is direct cause for the death of the deceased, more particularly in a criminal cases, the 12 prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but in this case on hand the prosecution failed to prove the main ingredient of the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC i.e., the rash or negligence (driving) act of the accused, in view of the above made discussions made in supra this court got reasonable doubt about the rash or negligence act of the accused.
20.In view of the foregoing reasons and circumstances, without any hesitation, this court came to the conclusion that, the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and proper evidence to implicate the accused in the commission of offence and which allegations are leveled against him.
Therefore, it can be held that the ingredients of Sec.304-A of IPC i.e., “Causing death by rash or negligent act” is not attracted and not proved by the prosecution against the accused in this case. Point is answered accordingly.
21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C and accordingly he is acquitted U/s 255(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of accused shall stand in force for six months U/Sec 437 (A)
Cr.P.C. No property was deposited in this case.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of September, 2021.
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
ALAMPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Pw.1: Kamatham Laxmi Kanthamma Pw.2: P. Nirmal Pw.3: R. Praveen Pw.4: Ravi Kumar Pw.5: Kumari Boya Vanitha Pw.6: B.Venkateshwar Naidu Pw.7: G.Venkatesh, SI of Police Pw.8: Pothapogu Janaiah Pw.9: B.Narender Naik Pw.10: Dr. Y.K.C Rangaiah Pw.11: K. Sathyanarayana Pw.12: Boya Maheshwari 13
Pw.13: A. Parvathalu SI of Police. Pw.14: Atukeshula Hari Babu
FOR THE DEFENCE: -NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 is the report. Ex.P2 is inquest report. Ex.P3 is signature of PW.8 on crime detail form. Ex.P4 is M.V.I. Report. Ex.P5 is P.M.E. Report of the deceased. Ex.P6 is FIR. Ex.P7 is Crime details form. Ex.P8 is signature of Pw.14 on crime detail form.
FOR THE DEFENCE: -NIL-
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: - NIL-
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
ALAMPUR.