CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MARKAPUR
Sessions Case No. 17 of 2020
(Case against A-1 only)
(P.R.C. No.32/2019 of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Crime No.144/2018 of Thripuranthakam Police Station)
Complainant: State represented by it’s Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Circle.
Description of the Accused 1. Theliki Tirumalesh, S/o.Krishna, aged 24 years, Kannepukunta Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. Cleaner of lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053.
2. Nalikiri Raju, S/o.Thimmanna, aged 32 years, House No.8/227, Kannepukunta Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, driver of lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053.( D I E D ) ( Case against A-2 is abated on 19.12.2023, as he died) Charge: A-1 : Under Sections 337, 304 (ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Plea of the Accused: Not guilty. Finding of the Court: Guilty Sentence or Order: A-1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount A-1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further, A-1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount A-1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further, A-1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount A-1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A-1 is appraised right of preferring appeal and free legal aid. Case against A-2 is
2
abated on 19.12.2023, as he died. Since no property produced in this case, no property order is passed.
DATES OF
Occurrence:15-11-2018 Complaint:15-11-2018 Committal Order:09-10-2019 Appearance :20-02-2024 Commencement of trial:09-09-2025 Closure of trial:11-02-2026 Sentence or Order:07-05-2026 Explanation for the delay:
The entire case record was received from the Hon'ble District &
Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole on 12.02.2020. On 22.06.2020, summons
issued on accused. At this stage, the case was being adjourned from time to time due to Covid-19 pandemic and due to non-appearance of accused. Case against A-2 is abated on 19.12.2023, as he died.At this stage, the case being adjourned from time to time due to non-appearance of A-1 and subsequently, N.B.W pending against A-1. Charges are framed against A-1 on 05.08.2025 and summons were issued to the listed witnesses, fixing the schedule for trial. The evidence of prosecution commenced from 09.09.2025 and closed by 27.11.2025. The prosecution examined on it’s behalf PWs1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to 15. On 11.02.2026, A-1 was examined under section 313
Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported to have no evidence. Consequently evidence of defence was closed. By 01.04.2026 arguments of both sides are completed and the matter adjourned for judgment to 27.04.2026. On 27.04.2026, accused is absent and the matter adjourned to 01.05.2026. On 01.05.2026, judgment not made ready and adjourned to 07.05.2026. On 07.05.2026, Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.
Note : A-1 paid fine amount of Rs.6,000/-. Sd./- B.Devendra Reddy Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur. Copy submitted to :
1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole Copy to :
2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole
3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole
4. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Markapur
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Markapur
3
IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: MARKAPUR
Present : Sri B. Devendra Reddy, Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.
Thursday, this the Seventh (07 th ) day of May, 2026.
Sessions Case No. 17 of 2020
(P.R.C. No.32/2019 of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Crime No.144/2018 of Thripuranthakam Police Station) (Case against A-1 only)
State : represented by it’s Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Circle.
...Complainant
Vs.
1.Theliki Tirumalesh, S/o.Krishna, aged 24 years, Kannepukunta Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. Cleaner of lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053.
2. Nalikiri Raju, S/o.Thimmanna, aged 32 years, House No.8/227, Kannepukunta Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District, driver of lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053. ( D I E D ) (Case against A-2 is abated on 19.12.2023, as he died) …Accused
This Sessions Case coming before me on the 1st day of April, 2026 for arguments in the presence of Sri D.Gandhi Reddy, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State / Complainant and of Sri K.Narendranath, learned counsel for Accused No.1 and on perusal of the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for A-1, and material on record, and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court, delivered the following:-
// J U D G M E N T //
1.The State represented by it’s Inspector of Police of
Yerragondapalem Circle has laid down charge-sheet against Accused No.1
4
along with Accused No.2, for the offences punishable under Section 337, 304 (ii) of Indian Penal Code, 1860, under Sections 3 read with Section 181, under Section 5 read with Section 180 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in
Crime No.144/2018 of Thripuranthakam Police Station.
2. The case of the Prosecution is that one Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh is the resident of Palladoddi Village of C. Belagal Mandal, Kurnool District was living by doing cultivation. On 14.11.2018 at 8-00 p.m, the said Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda
Venkatesh his villagers who are LW1 - Boya Maddileti, LW2 - Kurava
Ayyaswamy, LW3 - Kurava Ramudu were loaded their onions in lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053 (herein after referred as ‘crime vehicle’ in short) and proceeded towards Tadepalligudem of East
Godavari District from their village for selling the onion. They were sat in the said lorry cabin along lorry cleaner / A-1. While the driver of the said lorry / A-2 was driving the said lorry towards Tadepalligudem. and on the way, at the boarder of Prakasam District, A-2 stopped the lorry and handed over to the cleaner of the lorry / A-1 and slept in the lorry. On 15.11.2018 at about 4-00 a.m, when the lorry reached near Gollapalli Village of
Thripuranthakam Mandal, A-1 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and A-1 lost control over the lorry, due to which the lorry turned turtle on the road margin, and got heavy damage to the lorry. Resulting in, LW1 - Boya Maddileti received injury on head, right leg knee, the said Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh received
5
injury on fore head, back side, left hand, LW2- Kurava Ayyaswamy received injuries on head and right leg knee and LW3-Kurava Ramudu received injuries on head and lacerated injuries all over the body, and the driver of the lorry / A-2 received injuries on right and left hands, back side, left leg foot, and the clear of the lorry cleaner /A-1 who drove the lorry at the time of accident also received injuries on head with simple injuries.
Later, all the injured were shifted in 108 ambulance to Government hospital, Markapur for treatment. The police went to the said hospital and recorded the statements of LW1 - Boya Maddileti about the occurrence of offence. After that all the said injured except A-1 and A-2 were shifted to
Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment there the said
Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh was died on 29.11.2018 at 10-45 p.m while undergoing treatment.
(i) On 15.11.2018 at 12-00 a.m, LW16 – M.C.S. Raju, Head
Constable – 1738 of Thripuranthakam P.S received hospital intimation and the statement of LW1 – Boya Maddileti and registered the said statement as a case in Crime No.144/2018 under Section 337 of I.P.C of
Thripuranthakam P.S and submitted F.I.R to the court besides all the officers concerned. The Head Constable visited the scene of offence, examined the scene of offence, drew rough sketch of the scene of offence, visited Government hospital, Markapur, there he examined the said Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh his villagers who are LW1 -
Boya Maddileti, LW2 - Kurava Ayyaswamy, LW3 - Kurava Ramudu and
6
recorded their statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Upon receipt of death intimation of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh, the
Head Constable added Section 304 (A) I.P.C to Section 337 I.P.C on 30.11.2018 by way of memo submitted to court. Subsequently, he conducted inquest over the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias
Pedda Venkatesh at Government General Hospital, Kurnool on 30.11.2018 in the presence of LW4 – Boya Lakshmi, LW5 – Boya Thirumaleshu, LW6 – Boya chinna Venkatesh, LW7 – Boya Venktesh, LW9 – Shaik Akbar,
LW10 – Boya Rangaswamy and LW11 – Kurava Hanumanthu, and the inquestdars opined that the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias
Pedda Venkatesh died due to rash and negligent act of lorry cleaner / A-1 who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and A-1 is responsible for the death of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh and subsequently, the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda
Venkatesh was sent for autopsy. On 02.12.2018, the Head Constable obtained postmortem certificate of the deceased Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh from LW13 – Dr. V.Rajasekhar,
Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College,
Kurnool, in which it is opined that the deceased Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh would have appeared to have died of ‘intracranial bleeding associated with skull bone fracture resulting from head injury’.
7
(ii) On 15.12.2018, LW17 – K.Kamalakar, Sub-Inspector of Police,
Thripuranthakam P.S took up further investigation in this case. On 18.02.2019 at about 6-30 p.m, the owner of the crime vehicle / LW8 –
Kottala Manohar Reddy appeared before the Sub-Inspector of Police in police station and handed over the crime vehicle records and informed that
A-1 and A-2 are responsible for the death of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh and injuries of other injured, and they did not respond for his phone calls and did not contact him since the occurrence of the accident, on that the Sub-Inspector of Police examined the owner of the crime vehicle and recorded his statement under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C.
Basing on the statement of the owner of the crime vehicle and basing on the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police altered the section of law from Sections 337, 304 (A) I.P.C to Sections 337, 304 (II) I.P.C and treated
A-1 as lorry cleaner and added A-2 as Lorry driver and submitted express alteration memo to the court and to all officers concerned. On receipt express alternation memo, LW18 – K.Maruthi Krishna, Inspector of Police,
Yerragondapalem Circle took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, on 18.02.2019 the Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence, reconstructed the scene of offence, and found that the crime vehicle was totally scrapped by dilapidated due to mishap and photographed the crime vehicle and instructed the Sub-Inspector of Police to shift the crime vehicle to Thripuranthakam P.S. On 19.02.2019 the
Inspector of Police examined the witnesses. On 21.02.2019 at about 12-30
8
p.m, A-1 and A-2 were surrendered before the Inspector of Police and after enquiry A-1 and A-2 were produced for judicial remand. Basing on the statement of LW8 – Kottala Manohara Reddy who is the owner of the crime vehicle, A-2 recklessly given the crime vehicle to A-1 who had no driving licence and driving skills, and A-1 caused the death of Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh and caused injuries to LW1 - Boya
Maddileti, LW2 - Kurava Ayyaswamy, LW3 - Kurava Ramudu, the
Inspector of Police added Section 3 r/w.181 of Motor Vehicles Act against
A-1 and Section 5 r/w 180 of Motor Vehicles Act is added against A-2 who allowed A-1 to drive the crime vehicle, by filing memo before the court.
The Inspect of Police received the wound certificates of LW1 - Boya
Maddileti, LW2 - Kurava Ayyaswamy, LW3 - Kurava Ramudu, A-1 and A-2, from LW12 - Dr.K. Dayanidhi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,
Markapur, in which it is opined the injuries of the said persons are ‘ simple in nature ‘. LW14 - Chandra Rambabu, Motor Vehicles Inspector,
Markapur who inspected the crime vehicle and issued accident report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle vehicle. After completion of the investigation, the Inspector of police laid charge sheet against A-1 and A-2. Hence the charge.
3. The Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Markapur, having taken cognizance of the offences, punishable under Section 337, 304 (II) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against A-1 and Section 5
9
read Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against A-2, has registered the crime as Preliminary Registered Case in P.R.C No.32/2019 and committed the case to the Sessions Court, Sessions Division of Ongole, from where it was made over to this (Assistant Sessions Judge's) Court of
Markapur and registered as Sessions Case No.17/2020.
4.When the matter was coming up for hearing on charges,
A-2 was died, as such, the case against A-2 is abated on 19.12.2023. The accused No.1, pursuant to summons have appeared before Court, reported means to defend him in the course of trial as such charges under Section 304 – II, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 181 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 has been framed, read over and explained to him in his regional dialect, whereupon he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and that therefore he was put on his trial.
5. The theory of defence is one of total denial.
6. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 11 have been examined for the prosecution and got marked on it's behalf Exs.P1 to P15.
7. Thereafter, A-1 has been examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution, who having heard, denied the incriminating evidence and reported to have no defence evidence, resulting closure of defence evidence and heard arguments of prosecution and defence. Perused the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for
A-1 and perused the material on record.
10
8.Now the points that arise for determination in the
sessions case on hand are:-
(1) Whether the prosecution could able to prove that A-1 caused death of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alilas Pedda Venkatesh by driving the lorry, bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053, with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death, thereby, constituting culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, of section 304 - (II) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?
(2) Whether the prosecution could able to prove that A-1 by driving the lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053, in a rash or negligent manner, as to endanger to human life or personal safety or other caused simple injuries to PWs. 1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?
(3) Whether the prosecution could able to prove that A-1 drove the lorry bearing registration No.AP 27 TY 2053, without holding effective driving license, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, beyond all reasonable doubt?
9.Points No.1 to 3 :
In order to prove the guilt of A-1 for the charges leveled against him for the offence punishable under Sections 304 (II), 337 of
Indian Penal Code,1860 and under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 11 and got marked exhibits
P1 to P15. PWs 1 and 2 are the injured and eye witnesses to the occurrence of accident. PW3 is the son of the deceased Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh. PW4 is V.R.O who acted as a
11
mediator for inquest over the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh. PW4 is the owner of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing registration No.AP 27 TY 2053. PW6 is the doctor who treated the injured – PWs. 1, 2 and the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alilas
Pedda Venkatesh and A-2 (who died during the pendency of the case).
PW7 is the investigating officer who recorded the statement of PW1. PW8 is the Motor Vehicles Inspector. PW9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias
Pedda Venkatesh. PW10 is another investigating officer in this case. PW11 is also the investigating officers in this case, who laid charged sheet.
10.As per the case of prosecution, A-1 is the cleaner and
A-2 is the driver of the crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053, he handed over the said crime vehicle to A1, who is the cleaner of the said lorry, to drive the lorry, in which lorry PWs.1 and 2 and LW3 –
Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, and the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh were travelling to go to Tadepalligudem. At the border of Prakasam District, A-2 slept in the cabin of crime vehicle and when the crime vehicle reached to near Gollapalli Village of
Thripuranthakam Mandal, A-1 who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle was driving the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to high speed, the crime vehicle was turned turtle on the road margin and damaged heavily, and resulting the inmates of the crime vehicle who are
PWs.1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased Boya Pedda
12
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda sustained injuries, and while undergoing treatment, the said Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu and Pedda Venkatesh succumbed to injuries. During the pendency of the case, A-2, who is the driver of the crime vehicle, died, hence the case is abated against A-2, and trial was conducted against A-1 only.
11.In the evidence of PW1, deposed that A-1 and A-2 are lorry drivers. He further deposed that about seven years ago, he, LW2 -
Kuruva Ayya Swamy, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased
Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu engaged a lorry, to which lorry A-1 and A-2 were the drivers on the date of the accident, to take onions from their village to Tadepalligudem, and they proceeded in the said lorry from their village to Tadepalligudem. He further deposed that they sat in the cabin of the said lorry and by that time, initially, A-2 / Nalikiri Raju drove the said lorry till they reached to Gollapalli Village, and at Gollapalli
Village, the said Raju handed over the lorry to A-1 – Thirumalesh, to drive the lorry. He further deposed that from Gollapalli Village, A-1 drove the lorry in high speed and negligent manner, due to that the lorry was turned turtle at a place between Gollapalli and Thripuranthakam, at that time, A-1 / Thirumalesh was in sleeping mood. He further deposed that the said accident was occurred at 4-00 a.m. He further deposed that he received bleeding injury on head, the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu sustained injury on head and chest, LW2 - Kuruva Ayya Swamy sustained injury on head and other parts of his body, LW3 - Kuruva Pedda Ramudu
13
also sustained injury on chest, A-1 sustained grievous injury. He further deposed that he, LW2 - Kuruva Ayya Swamy, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda
Ramudu, the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateshwarulu, A-1 and A-2 were shifted in an ambulance to Area Hospital, Markapur for treatment, and since the condition of LW2 – Kuruva Ayya Swamy, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda
Ramudu, and the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu was serious, they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment, and while under going treatment for 14 days, the said Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that the police recorded his statement at Area Hospital, Markapur and obtained his signature on it, which is marked as Ex.P1 and the police also recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
12.PW2 deposed that about seven years ago, he, PW1,
LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Peda
Venkateswarlu engaged a lorry, to which A-1 and A-2 were drivers on the date of accident, to take onions from their village at 8-30 p.m to
Tadepalligudem, and they sat in the cabin of the lorry, by that time initially
A-2 / Nalikiri Raju drove the said lorry till they reached to Gollapalli Village, and at Gollapalli village, the said Raju handed over the lorry to A-1 /
Tirumalesh to driver the lorry, from there A-1 drove the lorry in high speed and negligent manner, due to that the lorry was turned turtle at a place between Gollapalli and Thripuranthakam, at that time A-1 / Tirumalesh was in sleeping mood. He further deposed that the said accident was occurred
14
at 4-00 a.m. He further deposed that he received injuries on head and left ribs, the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu sustained injury on head and also blood was oozing from ears and his chest was pressed, PW1 sustained injury on chest, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu sustained injury on chest, A-1 sustained simple injuries and A-2 sustained grievous injury.
He further deposed that he, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, A-1 and A-2 were shifted in an ambulance to Area hospital Markapur for treatment. He further deposed that since the conditions of him, PW1, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu was serious, they were shifted to
Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment. He further deposed that while undergoing treatment for 14 days, the deceased / Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C at Markapur.
13.In the cross-examination, PW1 denied a suggestion that at the time of accident, he was sitting on the load of the lorry and as there were ditches on the road, he fell down from the lorry and sustained injuries. PW2 in the cross-examination denied a suggestion that they sat on the load of the lorry on the date of accident and fell down from the lorry while the lorry was going on pits and sustained injuries. He also denied a suggestion that due to their negligence, they fell down from the lorry and sustained injuries. So, as per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who are
15
injured persons, it is clear that they were not sat on the top of the crime vehicle - lorry on load and they did not fell down from the top of the crime vehicle - lorry by siting on the load. Hence, it is clear from the evidence of
PWs.1 and 2 – injured that they sat in the cabin of the crime vehicle - lorry along with A-1 and A-2, at that time A-1 who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle – lorry, drove the crime vehicle - lorry with the permission of A-2 who is the driver of the crime vehicle – lorry, in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and made the crime vehicle – lorry to turn turtle, for which PWs.1 and 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, the deceased –
Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh and accused sustained injuries.
14.In the cross-examination, there is no suggestion to PWs.
1 and 2 by the learned counsel for accused that A-1 did not drive the crime vehicle and he is not responsible for the injuries caused to PWs. 1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh and accused. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are injured in the accident, vividly manifests that A-2 is the driver of the crime vehicle, he drove the crime vehicle up to border of Prakasam district and he handed over the crime vehicle to the clear of the crime vehicle who is A-1, and A-1 drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and made the crime vehicle to turn turtle, and A-1 is responsible for the injuries caused to PWs. 1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, the deceased
16
– Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh and accused who were in the cabin of the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident.
15.PW3 is son of the deceased – Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh. He deposed that on 15.11.2018,
PWs.1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and his deceased father – Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu engaged a lorry to take onion from their village to
Tadepalligudem. He further deposed that PW1 informed them that the lorry was turned turtle, PWs.1 and 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Radmudu and his father sustained injuries in the accident and PW1 also further informed them that the cleaner of the lorry drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner, and that the lorry was turned turtle, and PW1 also informed them that the said injured were shifted to Government hospital, Markapur for treatment and asked them to come to the said hospital, then all the family members of the said injured persons proceeded to Government hospital,
Markapur in a Bolero vehicle. He further deposed that PW1 further informed them while they were at Atmakur that they are coming to Kurnool in an ambulance for better treatment and that they went back to Kurnool.
He further deposed that his father had taken treatment at Government hospital, Kurnool for 14 days and succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that police examined him and recorded his statement at Kurnool.
16.In the cross-examination, PW3 denied a suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of police. As per the evidence of
PW3, it can be said that after occurring accident to his father, PWs.1, 2,
17
LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, he proceeded to Government hospital,
Markapur and as he was informed that the injured persons were shifted to
Government hospital, Kurnooln, on that he went back to Kurnool. Since
PW3 stated in the chief-examination that PW1 informed them that the lorry was turned turtle, PWs. 1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu, the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh were sustained injuries and that they were admitted in Government hospital for treatment and that they proceeded to the said hospital, the learned counsel for accused asked PW3 that he did not state the same before the police at the time of recording statements, but PW3 denied the said suggestion. As
PW3 stated in the chief-examination that they were informed that the injured were shifting to Kurnool hospital in an ambulance for better treatment, knowing the same when they were reached at Armakur, they returned to Kurnool, the learned counsel for the accused asked the witness that whether he stated the same before the police at the time of recording his statement, or not, the witness stated that since the police did not ask him the same he did not state to the police about their knowing the injured were shifting to Kurnool at Atmakur and going back to Kurnool. Since the police did not ask PW3, he did not state before the police that they followed the ambulance from Atmakur to Kurnool.
17.The point whether PW3 who is son of the deceased –
Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu was informed about his father, PWs.1, 2 and
LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu met with the accident, then he proceeded to
18
Government hospital, Markapur, on the way to Markapur at Atmakur he was informed by PW1 that his father and the other injured were shifted to
Kurnool after the accident, is important, and from which place they had gone along with the ambulance to Kurnool, is not important. The point to decide is whether A-1 had driven the crime vehicle at the time of accident or not. From the evidence of PW3 who is son of the deceased – Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu, it is clear that his father, PWs.1, 2 and LW3 –
Kuruva Pedda Ramudu sustained injuries in the accident while they were travelling in the crime vehicle which was driven by A-1 who is the clear of the crime vehicle.
18.It is evident from the evidence of PW4 that in his presence inquest was held over the dead body of Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu and prepared Ex.P2 – inquest report, and he subscribed his signatures on it along with LW10 – Boya Ramaswamy and LW11 – Kuruva
Hanumanthu. In the cross-examination PW3 stated that the inquest was commenced at 9-30 a.m and completed around 12-00 noon. So, from the evidence of PW4, it is clear that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu and prepared Ex.P2 – inquest report. It is not the case of A-1 that the deceased Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu was not died due to injuries sustained in the accident and hit due to some other vehicle. As per Ex.P2 – inquest report, it is clear that the deceased Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident while he was travelling in the crime vehicle which was driven by A-1. Since
19
PW4 stated in the cross-examination that he cannot say the name of scribe of Ex.P2 – inquest report, the learned counsel for accused submitted through his written arguments that the presence of PW4 at the time of inquest over the dead body of deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, is doubtful. Since PW4 was working as a V.R.O, he had attended the inquest which was held over the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu on 30.11.2018 and as evidence was given by him on 10.09.2025, he may not in a position to say the name of scribe of Ex.P2 – inquest report, that itself is not sufficient to say that A-1 was not driven the lorry at the time of accident and he is not responsible for the injuries to the deceased – Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu.
19.It is evident from the evidence of PW5 who is the owner of the crime vehicle – lorry bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053, he had handed over the said lorry to A-2 to take onion of ryots to Tadepalligudem,
A-2 informed over phone that the lorry met with an accident and it was turned turtle, and the inmates of the lorry were received injuries, then he suggested him to call ambulance and shift the injured to hospital for treatment. He further deposed that on the same day, he came to
Thripuranthakam P.S along with A-2 and produced the document of lorry and driving licence of A-2. So, from the evidence of PW5, it is clear that the crime vehicle was handed over by PW5 to A-2.
20.As per the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, A-2 drove the crime vehicle up to the border of Prakasam District, later, he handed over
20
the crime vehicle to the cleaner of the crime vehicle who is A-1 and A-1 drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and made the lorry to turn turtle and that they received injuries along with LW3 – Kuruva
Pedda Ramdudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu. Even though PW5 who is the owner of the crime vehicle stated before the police at the time of recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C, that he handed the lorry to A-2 who is driver, and A-2 handed over the lorry to A-1, but he stated in the cross-examination that he did not state before the police that A-2 handed over the crime vehicle after entering into Prakasam
District, he handed over the crime vehicle to A-1 who is cleaner of the crime vehicle, and A-1 drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that the crime vehicle was turned turtle. The said portion in
Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 got marked by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor as Ex.P3. Even though PW5 stated before the police that A-2 handed over the crime vehicle to A-1 when reached near to
Gollapalli Village of Thripuranthakam Mandal, he deposing contra before the court. However, from the evidence of PW5, it can be said PW5 handed over the crime vehicle to A-2 and in the accident PWs.1, 2 and
LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu sustained injuries.
21.Since PW5 who is the owner of the crime vehicle stated in the cross-examination that A-2 informed him that the injured were sat on the load of the lorry and at that time, he was the driver of the crime vehicle,
21
the learned counsel for accused through his written statements would submit that the injured were not sat in the cabin of the crime vehicle and they fell down from the top of the crime vehicle who sat on the load of the crime vehicle while the crime vehicle was going in pits and sustained injuries, but not accident to the crime vehicle – lorry. Since PW5 who is the owner of the crime vehicle was not an eye witness to the accident, relying on the evidence stated by him that A-2 informed him that the injures were sat on the load of the crime vehicle and A-2 is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, is not believable one.
22.In the light of the consistent evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are the injured and who sat in the cabin of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, it can be said that A-1 who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle had driven the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident, in a rash and negligent manner and responsible for the injuries to them and for the death of the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu.
23.PW7 is the then Head Constable of Markapur Rural P.S.
His evidence is that he recorded the statement of PW1 in Area hospital,
Markapur on 15.11.2018 at about 7-15 a.m and the said statement was forwarded by him to the Station House Officer, Thripuranthakam P.S on the point of jurisdiction. The learned counsel for accused through written arguments submits that PW7 admitted in the cross-examination that he did not mention the date and time beneath his signature in the statement of
PW1 and non-mentioning time and date beneath the signature of PW7, is
22
fatal to the case of prosecution. Non-mentioning the date and time by PW7 beneath his signature in Ex.P1 does not brush aside the substantial evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses.
24.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments submitted that in the cross-examination PW7 stated that he recorded the statement of PW1 at 7-15 a.m on 15.11.2018, at Area hospital, Markapur in the presence of duty doctor, whereas the doctor mentioned the date on Ex.P1 as 18.11.2018, so, the said discrepancy is fatal to the case of prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the signature of duty doctor mentioned as 15.11.2018 in
Ex.P1 – statement of PW1 which statement was recoded by PW7 of PW1.
A perusal of Ex.P1 – statement of PW1 which was recorded by PW7, it is noticed that duty doctor had mentioned the date beneath his signature as 15.11.2018, but not 18.11.2018. So, the argument of the learned counsel
for accused, is not sustainable one.
25.PW8 is Motor Vehicles Inspector. He deposed that on 17.11.2018 he inspected the crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21
TY 2053 at Thripuranthakam P.S and notice front portion of the crime vehicle was totally damaged and he issued Ex.P9 – report opining that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. Since the Motor Vehicles Inspector stated in the cross- examination that he did not note in Ex.P9 – report the name of officer from whom he received requisition to inspect the crime vehicle, the learned
23
counsel for accused through written arguments submitted that non- mentioning the name of officer from whom the Motor Vehicles Inspector has received requisition to inspect the crime vehicle in Ex.P9 – report, is fatal to the case of prosecution and Ex.P9 – report is a fabricated one.
Mere non-mentioning the name of officer from whom PW8 – Motor
Vehicles Inspector received requisition to inspect the crime vehicle, is not fatal to the case of prosecution and also it cannot be said that Ex.P9 – report is a fabricated one. There is no necessity to PW8 – Motor Vehicles
Inspector to fabricate Ex.P9 – report. No motive is explained by the learned counsel for accused to PW8 to fabricate Ex.P9 -re port mentioning that there is no mechanical defect in the crime vehicle. So, the argument of the learned counsel for accused in this aspect is not sustainable one.
26.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that as per the charge sheet PW11 – investigating officer visited the scene of offence on 19.02.2019 and found that the crime vehicle is totally scrapped by dilapidated condition due to mishap and photographed the crime vehicle and shifted the crime vehicle to the police station, whereas PW8 – Motor Vehicles Inspector in his evidence deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle on 17.11.2018 at Thripuranthakam P.S and noted the damages of the crime vehicle, so it is clearly established that
PW8 – Motor Vehicles Inspector had not inspected the crime vehicle at
Thripuranthakam P.S on 17.11.2018, since the vehicle as on that day was at the place of accident. A perusal of the charge sheet, it discloses that the
24
investigating officer – PW11 had noticed the crime vehicle at the scene of offence on 19.02.2019 and also found that the crime vehicle is totally scrapped by dilapidated condition due to mishap and photographed the crime vehicle and shifted the crime vehicle to the police station, and only in the charge sheet it is mentioned that PW8 – Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P9 – report opining that the accident was occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle involved in the accident. As per the evidence of PW8 – Motor Vehicles
Inspector, he had inspected the crime vehicle on 17.11.2018 at
Thripuranthakam P.S and issued Ex.P9 – report, appears that his inspection of the crime vehicle and giving Ex.P9 – report. As per the contents of charge sheet, the investigating officer – PW11 had noticed the crime vehicle at the scene of offence on 19.02.2019 and also found that the crime vehicle is totally scrapped by dilapidated condition due to mishap and photographed the crime vehicle and shifted the crime vehicle to the police station, when the vehicle is at the scene of offence as on 17.11.2018 how can PW8 would inspect the crime vehicle at police station,
Thripuranthakam. So, the said argument submitted by the learned counsel
for accused through written arguments is sustainable one. However,
merely on the aspect of said discrepancy in the evidence of PW8 – Motor
Vehicles Inspector, the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are injured in the accident, cannot be brushed aside.
25
27.It is not the case of A-1 that due to mechanical defects of the crime vehicle the accident was occurred and it is not his fault. So, it can be said that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicles (lorry) bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053 which vehicle was driven by A-1 at the time of accident who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle.
28.Coming to the evidence of PW9 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu. He deposed that on 30.11.2018 he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu and issued Ex.P10 – postmortem report opining that the cause of death of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu is “intracranial bleeding associated with skull fracture resulting from head injury”. So, from the evidence of PW9 – doctor, it appears that the deceased – Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu succumbed to injuries which are mentioned in Ex.P10 – postmortem report issued by PW9 – doctor. As per the prosecution as the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu is one of the persons travelling by sitting in the cabin of the crime vehicle which was driven by A-1 at the time of accident along with the injured – PWs.1, 2and LW3 – Kuruva Pedda
Ramudu (died).
29.In this case, the entire investigation done by LW16 –
M.C.S. Raju, Head Constable – 1738 of Thripuranthakam P.S. who died.
Since the said LW16 died, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed death certificate, hence, his evidence is closed. So, PW10 has deposed
26
the investigation done by LW16. Coming to the evidence of PW10, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Thripuranthakam P.S, he deposed that on 15.12.2018, he received case diary file from LW16 - M.C.S. Raju, Head
Constable No.1738 who worked as Station House Officer to
Thripurantakam Police Station and he took up investigation in this case and on 18.02.2019, he verified the investigation done by LW16 and found it on correct lines. He further deposed that on 18.02.2019, the owner of the vehicle bearing No.AP 21 TY 2053 came to the Police Station and submitted the vehicle records, then he examined him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he filed Ex.P14 – memo, dated 30.11.2018 to alter the section of law from Section 304-A I.P.C to Section 304-II I.P.C and later, he handed over the case file to LW18 - K.Maruthi
Krishna, the then Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Circle, for further investigation.
30.He further deposed that LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head
Constable No.1738 of Thripuranthakam P.S died on 21.04.2020. He further deposed that basing on the record he deposed with regard to the investigation done by LW16 – M.C.S. Raju, Head Constable No.1738. He further deposed that when he was under training, the LW16 acted as
Station House officer of Thripurantakam P.S, on 15.11.2018 LW16 received Ex.P11 - hospital admit intimation and statement of PW1 - Boya
Maddileti, and basing on the said statement of PW1, LW16 registered a case in Crime No.144/2018 under Section 337 of I.P.C, submitted Ex.P12 -
27
original F.I.R to the court and copies of the same to all concerned officers, and later, LW16 visited the scene of offence, drew Ex.P13 - rough sketch of scene of offence. He futher deposed that LW16 visited the Government
Hospital, Markapur, secured the presence of PWs.1, 2, L.W.3/Kuruva
Pedda Ramudu and deceased - Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, examined them and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 30.11.2018 LW16 received death intimation of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu from Government General Hospital, Kumool, and after receipt of the death intimation of deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, LW16 filed Ex.P15 - memo to alter the section of law from Section 337 I.P.C to Section 304-A
I.P.C. He further deposed that LW16 visited Government General
Hospital, Kurnool there he conducted inquest over the dead body of Boya
Pedda Venkateswarlu in the presence of blood relatives of the deceased and inquest mediators, namely Shaik Akbar Hussain – PW4, LW10 - Boya
Ranga Swamy and LW11 - Kuruva Hanumanthu, prepared inquest report and LW16 also examined PW3, LW4 - Boya Lakshmi, LW6 - Boya Chinna
Venkatesh and LW7 - Boya Venkatesh. He further deposed that LW16 sent a requisition to the PW9 - doctor to conduct autopsy over the dead body of deceased and on 02.12.2018, LW16 received postmortem certificate of deceased from PW9.
31.In the cross-examination, PW10 denied a suggestion that he did not enquire PWs. 1 to 3, LW4 – Boya Lakshmi, LW6 – Boya
Chinna Venkatesh and LW7 – Boya Venkatesh in the police station. In the
28
charge sheet also, it is mentioned that PW10 after returning from training,
LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 of Thripuranthakam P.S (died) handed over the case file and PW10 verified the investigation done by the said deceased Head Constable and found the same on correct lines.
So, as stated by PW10 in the cross-examination that he enquired about
PWs. 1 to 3, LW4 – Boya Lakshmi, LW6 – Boya Chinna Venkatesh and
LW7 – Boya Venkatesh in the police station, is correct. The investigation done by LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 of Thripuranthakam
P.S (died), is verified by PW10 and found it on correct lines. So, no need to record the statements of witnesses again by PW10 who received the case file from LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 of Thripuranthakam
P.S (died) after joining duty.
32.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that PW10 admitted in the cross-examination that
LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 who investigated into this case has not prepared scene observation report, not shot photographs of the scene of offence. He further would submit through written arguments that PWs.10 and 11 inspected the crime vehicle as per the contents of the charge sheet, but they did not prepare scene observation report, and non- preparation of the scene observation report by the investigating officer, is fatal to the case of prosecution and the investigating officer made table investigation and filed charge sheet. A perusal of the record, it discloses that the investigating officers who are PWs. 10, 11 and LW16 - M.C.S. Raju
29
Head Constable No.1738 of Thripuranthakam P.S (died) did not prepare scene observation report and the same is admitted by PW10 in the cross- examination. In the cross-examination PW10 stated that LW16 - M.C.S.
Raju Head Constable No.1738 of Thripuranthakam P.S (died) has not prepared scene observation report and not shot photographs of the scene of offence. Mere non-preparation of the scene observation report by the investigating officers, is not fatal to the case of prosecution, since the injured witnesses who are PWs. 1 and 2 who are inmates of the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident categorically and consistently deposed that A-1 had driven the crime vehicle at the time of accident in rash and negligent manner with high speed. Hence, A-1 is responsible for the death of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu and injuries to PWs.1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu.
33.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable
No.1738 (died) who visited the scene of offence, did not seize any material objects and did not examine any witnesses at the scene of offence, so, non-seizure of any material objects and non-examination of witnesses at the scene of offence, is fatal to the case of prosecution and the entire case of prosecution is fabricated one for the purpose of this case. In the evidence, PW10 deposed that LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable
No.1738 (died) has not seized any material objects and not examined any witnesses at the scene of offence. In this case, prosecution has not
30
produced any material objects and also investigating officer has not examined any witnesses at the scene of offence. Since the investigating officer has examined the injured persons and their relatives, and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, no witness is examined and recorded their statements who are residing near the scene of offence. As per the contents of Ex.12 – F.I.R and the evidence of PW10, the accident was occurred near Gollapalli Village and was not occurred in Gollapalli
Village, and at the scene of offence which is situated near the Gollapalli
Village, none may not be observed the accident as the accident was occurred at 4-00 a.m. Since the accident was occurred at 4-00 a.m on 15.11.2018 at the outskirts of Gollapalli Village, non-examination of persons at the scene of offence, is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
Since the injured are examined as PWs. 1 and 2 who are eye witnesses who sat in the cabin of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, no other evidence is required to prove the case of prosecution and examination of the injured witnesses is sufficient to prove the guilt of A-1.
34.Coming to seizure of material objects at the scene of offence, since the crime vehicle was damaged in the accident, there is no possibility to seize the crime vehicle and no need to seize any part of the crime vehicle, and also no need to produce the crime vehicle before the court. Hence, non-seizure of lorry or any material at the scene of offence is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
31
35.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that no test identification parade of accused was conducted, non-conducting test identification parade of accused is fatal to the case of prosecution. It is not the case of prosecution that after the accident the driver of crime vehicle was fled away from the scene of offence. It is the case of prosecution that the injured i.e. PWs. 1, 2, LW3 –
Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu engaged the crime vehicle to take onions to Tadepalligudem and they have engaged A-1 and A-2 who are cleaner and driver of the crime vehicle, and on the way, at the border of Prakasam District, A-2 handed over the crime vehicle to A-1 who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle, who had driven the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and made the crime vehicle turned turtle. So, in the said circumstances, no need to conduct test identification parade of the accused.
36.Since PW10 deposed in the cross-examination that he examined PWs.1, 2, LW4 – Boya Lakshmi, LW6 – Boya Chinna Venkatesh and LW7- Boya Venkatesh in the police station, and whereas PWs.1 and 2 stated in the cross-examination that they were examined by police at the hospital at Markapur and Kurnool, and there only police recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that there is a contradiction between the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2, and PW10. In the cross- examination of PW10, denied a suggestion that he did not enquire PWs.1,
32
2, LWs.4, 6 and 7 in the police station. So, it is clear that PW10 enquired
PWs.1, 2, LWs. 4, 6 and 7 in the police station. PW10 did not state that he examined the said witnesses and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. PWs.1 and 2 deposed that they were examined at Markapur hospital and Kurnool hospital only one time and their evidence is correct and sop, there is no contradiction between the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and
PW10 with regard to the said aspect.
37. Since PW10 stated in the cross-examination that LW16 -
M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 (died) did not obtain the signatures of duty doctor on Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1, 2 and LW3 –
Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, the learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that non-obtaining the signatures of duty doctor in Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, is fatal to the case of prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no hard and fast rule to obtain the signatures of duty doctor on Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of injured witnesses whose statements were recorded by the investigating officer while they were in hospital. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no hard and fast rule to obtain the signatures of duty doctor on Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of
PWs.1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Venkateswarlu and the deceased – Boya
33
Pedda Venkateswarlu by the investigating officer, even statements are recorded in the hospital, is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
38.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that the investigating officer / LW16 - M.C.S. Raju
Head Constable No.1738 (died) has not mentioned the date and time beneath his signature in Ex.P13 – rough sketch of the scene of offence, and the non-mentioning the date and time in Ex.P13 – rough sketch, is fatal to the case of prosecution. A perusal of Ex.P13 – rough sketch prepared by
LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 (died), he has not mentioned date and time beneath his signature. Non-mentioning the date and time beneath the signatures of the investigating officer in Ex.P13 – rough sketch, is not fatal to the case of prosecution. PW10 – investigating officer categorically deposed in his evidence that LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head
Constable No.1738 (died) inspected the scene of offence and prepared
Ex.P13 – rough sketch of the scene of offence. So, basing on the evidence of PW10 and Ex.P13 – rough sketch of the scene of offence, it is clear that
LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 (died) had visited the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P13 – rough sketch of the scene of offence.
39.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that PW11 – investigating officer did not prepare arrest mahazar of A-1 and A-2 in the presence of mediators, so, non- preparation of arrest mahazar is fatal to the case of prosecution. There is no hard an fast rule arrest of the accused should be done before mediator
34
under arrest mahazar. So, non-preparation of arrest mahazar for the arrest of accused in the presence of mediators, by PW11 – investigating officer is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
40.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that PW2 stated in the cross-examination that he fell unconscious after reaching the hospital and he cannot say at what time the doctors started treatment to him, but according to the prosecution,
LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 (died) recorded the statements of PWs. 1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu after receiving transfer F.I.R from Markapur Rural P.S, so, the said fact clearly shows that
LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 (died) did not visit the hospital and did not record the statements of PWs.1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva
Pedda Ramudu under Section 161 Cr.P.C and he made table investigation and prayed to acquit A-1. A perusal of the cross-examination of PW2, he stated in the cross-examination that as he went unconscious after reaching the hospital and that he cannot say at what time the doctor stated treatment to him and he further stated that they were shifted to
Government hospital, Kurnool in an ambulance. Since PW2 is in a position to say that they were shifted to Government hospital, Kurnool in an ambulance, it can be said that he gained conscious after treatment. So, there is a possibility to LW16 - M.C.S. Raju Head Constable No.1738 (died) to record the statement of PW2 at the hospital after he regained conscious.
35
So, the arguments of the learned counsel for accused in this aspect is not sustainable one.
41.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that the prosecution failed to establish the place of occurrence of accident. He further would submit that in the evidence
PWs.1 and 2 deposed that the place of accident is between Gollapalli and
Thripuranthakam, whereas PW10 – investigating officer, stated in the cross-examination that according to Ex.P8 – hospital admit intimation, the accident was taken place at Markapur bye-pass road and PW7 stated in the cross-examination that in Ex.P8 – hospital admit intimation, the place of accident is near bye-pass road, Markapur, but according to rough sketch of the scene of offence, the place of accident is Gollaplli Village, whereas in the cross-examination PW11 – investigating officer stated that the scene of offence is located at the entrance of Gollapalli Village, so, the said fact is clearly shows that there is no corroboration between the witnesses regarding the place of accident, and non-fixing the place of accident is fatal to the case of prosecution.
42.A perusal of the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 11, they categorically deposed that the accident was occurred near Gollapalli
Village. Even though in Ex.P8 – hospital admit intimation, it is mentioned that the accident was occurred near bye-pass road, Markapur that does not brush aside the evidence deposed by PWs. 1, 2 and 11 with regard to the place of accident near Gollapalli Village. Only on the information given by
36
the injured witnesses who admitted in the hospital might have noted in
Ex.P8 – hospital admit intimation that the accident was occurred at
Markapur bye-pass road. Since the injured witnesses are not belongs to the area where the accident was taken place, they belongs to Kurnool district and that they might have not known the exact place of the accident, so, they might have stated to the hospital authorities the accident was occurred at Markapur bye-pass road, hence, the hospital authorities might have mentioned the place of accident at bye-pass road, Markapur. Mere mentioning the place of accident in Ex.P8 – hospital admit intimation, as
Markapur bye-pass road, the substantial evidence deposed by PWs.1, 2 and 11 that the place of accident is near Gollapalli cannot be brushed aside. So, the said argument of the learned counsel for accused is not sustainable one.
43.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that as per the evidence of PW6 – doctor he provided treatment to PWs. 1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and he referred them to Government hospital, Kurnool for better treatment, the doctor has not stated that he had provided treatment to the deceased –
Boaya Pedda Venkateswarlu, so, sustaining injuries by the deceased –
Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh, in the accident, is doubtful and A-1 is not responsible for the death of Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh, and prayed to acquit A-1. A perusal of evidence of PW6 – doctor, he did not depose that he provided
37
treatment to the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, he deposed that he provided treatment to PWs.1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and A-2.
As per the case of prosecution, eivdence of PWs.1 to 3, the deceased –
Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu along with the other injured were shifted to
Area hospital, Markapur there they were provided treatment and later, they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment.
Even though PW6 doctor has not stated that he provided treatment to the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, the prosecution has examined the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu at Government hospital, Kurnool as PW9. PW9 deposed that on the requisition of the Station House Officer, Thripuranthakam P.S he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased – Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu on 30.11.2018 and found external and internal injuries which are mentioned in Coloumn No.11 of the postmortem report and issued Ex.P10 – postmortem report opining that the cause of death of the deceased – Boya Venkateswarlu is ‘ intracranial bleeding associated with skull fracture resulting from head injury’.
44.As per the case of prosecution, the deceased –
Boya Venkateswarlu was travelling along with PWs.1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva
Pedda Ramudu in the crime vehicle which was driven by A-2 who is the driver of the crime vehicle and later, at the border of Prakasam District, A-2 handed over the crime vehicle to A-1 who is the cleaner of crime vehicle to drive the crime vehicle, and A-1 drove the crime vehicle in high speed in
38
negligent manner, and caused injuries to PWs. 1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva
Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu, and later, the said Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in Government hospital, Kurnool. So, it is clear that the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu was treated in Government hospital, Kurnool and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries.
PW9 held autopsy over the dead body of Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu on 30.11.2018, and as per the opinion given by him under Ex.P10 – postmortem report, that the cause of death of the deceased – Boya
Venkateswarlu is ‘ intracranial bleeding associated with skull fracture resulting from head injury’. So, it is clear that the deceased – Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alias Pedda Venkatesh who was in the cabin of the crime vehicle along with the injured sustained injuries and later, succumbed to injuries, which vehicle was driven by A-1 who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle in high speed and negligent manner. So, the argument of the learned counsel for accused in this aspect is not sustainable one.
45.The learned counsel for accused through written arguments would submit that according to Ex.P12 – F.I.R in Coloumn No.7, A-1 is shown as driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053, but according to the evidence of witnesses and charge sheet A-2 is the driver of the crime vehicle / lorry bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053, the said discrepancy is fatal to the case of prosecution. He further would submit that according to the statement of PW1 in Ex.P1, A-2 is the owner of the crime
39
vehicle, according to PW5, he is the owner of crime vehicle and according to PW8 – Motor Vehicles Inspector, one B.Venkata Ramudu is the owner of the crime vehicle, so, there is no corroboration with regard to the ownership of the crime vehicle between the witnesses and it is fatal to the case of prosecution and the investigating officer has not enquired about the original owner of the crime vehicle to establish the fact to whom the owner of the vehicle had handed over the crime vehicle.
46.A perusal of the evidence of PW5, he deposed that he is the owner of crime vehicle. As per the evidence of PW9 – Motor Vehicles
Inspector, one B.Venkata Ramudu is the owner of the crime vehicle, as per the records. Even though PW5 has not explained in his evidence that he had purchased the crime vehicle from B.Venkta Ramudu, wherein he stated in his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, before the investigating officer that he purchased the lorry / crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP 21
TY 2053 from B.Venkata Ramudu, but he did not get transfer the crime vehicle on his name. In the evidence PW5 deposed that he handed over the crime vehicle to A-2 to take onion of ryots to Tadepalligudem and A-2 over phone informed him that the crime vehicle / lorry met with an accident and intimates of the crime vehicle were received injuries, then he suggested him to shift the injured in an ambulance to hospital for treatment and on the same day, he came to Thripuranthakam P.S along with A-2 and produced documents of the crime vehicle and also driving licence of A-2.
So, it is clear that PW5 had purchased the crime vehicle from B.Vekata
40
Ramudu and had handed over the crime vehicle to A-2 who is the driver of the crime vehicle. So, the said arguments of the learned counsel for accused in this aspect is not sustainable one.
47.Coming to the offence punishable under Section 181 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which offence charge is framed against A-1.
As per the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 who are injured and inmates of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident, A-2 who is the driver of the crime vehicle drove the lorry till reaching Prakasam district border, and at
Prakasam district border, A-2 handed over the crime vehicle to A-1 who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle, he drove the crime vehicle in high speed and negligent manner and made the crime vehicle turned turtle near
Gollapalli Village, and they sustained injuries along with LW3 – Kuruva
Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu. Even though the learned counsel for accused cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 who are injured in the accident, nothing is elicited in favour of A-1. Hence, it can be said that A-2 handed over the crime vehicle to A-1 at Prakasam district border who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle and he drove the crime vehicle in high speed and negligent manner and made the crime vehicle turned turtle and that he is responsible for the injuries of PWs.1, 2,
LW3 – Kuruva Pedda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu. So, the said argument of the learned counsel for accused that A-1 was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, is not sustainable. It is bounden duty of A-1 to establish that he is having
41
driving licence, even though he denied that he drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident, but he did not produce his driving licence. Hence, it is clear that A-1 has no valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle.
Therefore, A-1 is liable for punishment for the offence punishable under
Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
48.In view of the foregoing reasons, this court holds that the prosecute could able to prove that A-1 caused death of Boya Pedda
Venkateswarlu alilas Pedda Venkatesh by driving the crime vehicle / lorry, bearing registration No.AP 21 TY 2053, without having driving licence with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death, thereby, constituting culpable homicide, not amounting to murder, of section 304 -(II) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the the prosecution could able to prove that A-1 by driving the crime vehicle / lorry bearing registration No. AP 21 TY 2053, high speed in negligent manner, as to endanger to human life or personal safety or other caused simple injuries to PWs. 1, 2 and LW3 – Kuruva
Pedda Ramudu, thereby committing the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, the prosecution could able to prove that A-1 drove the lorry bearing registration
No.AP 27 TY 2053, without holding effective driving license, thereby committing offence punishable under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, beyond all reasonable doubt.
42
49.In the result, A-1 is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304-II, 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as such he is convicted under Section 235 (2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7 th day of May, 2026.
Sd./- B.Devendra Reddy Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.
50.When A-1 is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence for the offences punishable under Section 304-II, 337 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he submitted that he is living by doing coolie works, he is having wife and minor children, aged parents, they are living along with him and his entire family is depending on him, and his family will put into starvation if he sent to jail, and prayed to show mercy on him and reduce the sentence of imprisonment.
51.Taking into consideration the gravity of the offences proved against A-1 by the prosecution under Section 304-II, 337 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submission made by A-1, this court is inclined to take lenient view in imposing the sentence against A-1, imposing the fine would meet the endsof justice. This case is not a fit case to apply the provisions of
43
Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hence, the above Provision and Act is not applied.
52.Therefore, A-1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine amount A-1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Further, A-1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount A-1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Further, A-1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default of payment of fine amount A-1 shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month, for the offence punishable under Section 181 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A-1 is appraised right of preferring appeal and free legal aid. Case against A-2 is abated on 19.12.2023, as he died.
Since no property produced in this case, no property order is passed.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 7 th day of May, 2026.
Sd./- B.Devendra Reddy Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.
// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: PW1:Boya Maddileti PW2:Kuruva Ayya Swamy
44
PW3:Boya Tirumalesh PW4:Shaik Akber Hussain, V.R.O. PW5:Kottala Manohar Reddy PW6:Dr. K.S. Dayanidhi, Civil Assistant Surgeon PW7:Karumanchi Subhani, Head Constable PW8:CH.Rambabu, Motor Vehicles Inspector PW9:Dr. V.Rajasekhar, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine PW10:K.Kamalakar, Sub-Inspector of Police PW11:K.Maruthi Krishna, Inspector of Police
For Defence : NIL
Documents Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1:Statement / report of PW1, dated 15.11.2018. Ex.P2:Inquest report, dated 30.11.2018. Ex.P3:Relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5,
dated 18.02.2019.
Ex.P4:Wound certificate of PW1, dated 22.04.2019. Ex.P5:Wound certificate of PW2, dated 22.04.2019. Ex.P6:Wound certificate of LW3 – K.Pedda Ramudu, dated 22.04.2019. Ex.P7:Wound certificate of A-2, dated 22.04.2019. Ex.P8:Hospital admission intimation, dated 15.11.2018. Ex.P9:M.V.I report, dated 17.11.2018, dated 17.11.2018. Ex.P10:Preliminary postmortem certificate, dated 30.11.2018. Ex.P11:Hospital admission intimation of PWs. 1, 2, LW3 – Kuruva Peda Ramudu and the deceased – Boya Pedda Venkateswarlu. Ex.P12:First information report, dated 15.11.2018. Ex.P13:Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P14:Section alteration memo, dated 30.11.2018. Ex.P15:Section alternation memo, dated 18.02.2019.
Material Objects Marked
- NIL - Sd./- B.Devendra Reddy Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.