Fair 1 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(EXCISE) CUM IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KARIMNAGAR.
PRESENT : Sri.Banothu Rajeshwar, Special Judl. Magistrate of F.C. (Excise) cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
Tuesday, the 28th day of April, 2026.
CALENDAR CASE No. 144 of 2016
(New CC No. 661 of 2018)
(Crime No. 233/2015 of PS, LMD Colony Police Station)
Name of the complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub- Inspector of Police, LMD Colony Police Station.
Name of the accused:Bathini Yadagiri s/o. Bondaiah, age: 60 years,r/o.H.No.7-105,Marrichettu Chowrastha, Husnabad.
Crime number, police:233 of 2015 stationLMD Colony police station
Offence punishable under:304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal sectionsCode.
Prosecution conducted by:Sri.G.Veeraswamy,AssistantPublic Prosecutor.
Defence conducted by:Sri.R.Kiran Singh, Advocate
Plea of the accused:Not Guilty
Finding of the Court: Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal period. As there is no property deposited in this case, there is no order as to the property.
Sentence or Order: Nil
Fair 2 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR * * * This case having came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G.Veeraswamy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and Sri.R.Kiran Singh, Advocate for the accused; after perusing the case records, upon hearing the arguments of both the counsels and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1.The Charge sheet is filed by Sub-Inspector of police, LMD Colony police station in crime No.233 of 2015 against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec.304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).
2.(i)The brief facts of the persecution case are that, on 15.10.2015 at 0715 hours the complainant Vuturi Gouri Shankar went to police station and submitted a complaint stating that, he is eking his livelihood by doing rice business, in the said business his wife also helping him. On 14.10.2015 at 0400 hours for medical check up to his grand son Rohan Babu/LW-3, his wife, daughter in law Rajitha/LW-2 and grand son three of them went to Hyderabad in RTC bus from Jagtial and after medical check up at 7.00 pm they boarded the Jagtial depot RTC bus bearing No.AP-15-Z-0154 on the way at 11.30 pm night the RTC bus reached at Ramakrishna Colony near Masjid there on
Rajiv High Way road a lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 is parked by its driver without any indicators or any precautionary measures due to darkness the said lorry not visible to the RTC driver therefore the bnus went and hit the lorry on its back side at that time his wife sat behind the seat of driver due to which she sustained head injury and later she was removed from the bus and
Fair 3 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR shifting her Karimnagar on such information the complainant started from
Jagtial and reached to Karimnagar on 15.10.2015 the duty doctor after check up his wife declared that his wife died, then her dead body preserved in mortuary. Further he stated that the driver and other passengers also sustained injuries. Finally he requested to take necessary action.
(ii) Basing on the complaint the LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar had registered a case in Cr.No.233/2015 U/sec.304-A, 337 IPC and took up investigation.
During the course of investigation the LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar rushed to
District head quarters, hospital, Karimnagar mortuary and secured the presence of LW-6/E.Ravindra Chary got the dead body photographed and held inquest over the dead body in the presence of LW-12/B.Sridevi and LW- 13/B.Venugopal Goud and subjected for autopsy to know the cause of the death of the deceased. During the inquest the LW-20 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1/V.Gouri Shankar, LW-2/V.Rajitha, LW- 3/V.Rohan Babu, LW-4/M.Srinivas, LW-5/D.Sampath Reddy and LW- 6/E.Ravindra Chary, while return to PS the LW-16/Dr.Harathi visited scene of offence situated at RK Colony and noted down the details of scene in the presence of LW-11/M.Venu and LW-12/B.Sridevi and noted down the details of scene of offence. Later, examined and recorded the statements of LW- 7/T.Murali Mohan, who was under going treatment at Adarsha hospital,
Karimnagar and LW-8/Syed Khaja Moinuddin, LW-9/Farhana Begum and
LW-10/A.Ravi who are under going treatment in Sai Ram Hospital,
Fair 4 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
Karimnagar.
(iii)The LW-16/Dr.Harathi conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to " Head Injury". LW-17/Dr.P.Vinay who treated the LW-7/T.Murali Mohan issued medical certificate opined that the LW-7 sustained with grievous injuries and LW-18/Dr.Sanjay Ramchandra treated LW-8/Syed Khaja
Moinuddin, LW-9/Farhana Begum and LW-10/A.Ravi and issued medical certificates, which opined that nature of LW-8/Syed Khaja Moinuddin and
LW-9/Farhana Begum sustained with grievous injuries and LW-10/A.Ravi sustained with simple injuries. The LW-19/V.Srinivasa Reddy inspected the crime vehicle and issued report that the accident is not resulted to any mechanical defect.
(iv)While efforts are being continued to apprehend the accused on 26.10.2015 the accused went to police station and surrendered before the
LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar along with LW-11/M.Venu, who owner of the crime vehicle. Accordingly he was taken into custody and interrogated him. During the interrogation he voluntarily confessed this offence and on demand by
LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar the accused produced his DL, RC book, Insurance.
After completion of investigation LW-20/S.Sateesh Kumar filed charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable u/Sec. 304-A, 337, 338 of IPC.
Fair 5 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
3.Upon perusal of the charge sheet and documents filed their with, The I-Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of first class, Karimnagar took cognizance for the offence
punishable u/Sec.304-A, 337, 338 of IPC against accused and registered as
CC 144 of 2016.
4.On appearance of accused case copies furnished to him as required u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Later, this case was transferred to this court at the stage of examination as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl.District and
Sessions Judge, Karimnagar vide order Dis.No.4118, Dt.26.05.2018 and re-
numbered as CC 661 of 2018.
5.The accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. by explaining substances of acquisition of the offence punishable u/sec.304-A, 337, 338 of IPC against accused for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During the course of trial, in support of its case, the prosecution has examined P.W-1 to 11 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked. The Learned APPO given up the evidence of LW-4/Macharla Srinivas, LW-6/Erroju Ravndra
Chary, LW-8/Syed Khaja Moinuddin, LW-11/Mengni Venu, LW-12/Bosetti sridevi, LW-17/Dr.P.Vinay and LW-18/Dr.Sanjay Ramchandra to avoid material contradiction upon request of the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor, the prosecution evidence is closed.
Fair 6 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, with reference to the incriminating evidence found against him from prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence.
8.Heard the learned APP and learned defence prosecution of the accused.
9. In the point for the determination is:
Whether the prosecution is proved the guilty of accused for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A, 337, 338 of IPC on beyond of reasonable doubt?
POINT:-
10.The case of the prosecution is that, on 14.10.2015 the grand son of complainant namely Rohan Babu/LW-3, his wife, daughter in law Rajitha/LW- 2 and grand son three of them went to Hyderabad in RTC bus from Jagtial and after that they boarded the Jagtial depot RTC bus bearing No.AP-15-Z- 0154 on the way at night the RTC bus reached at Ramakrishna Colony near
Masjid there on Rajiv High Way road a lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 is parked by its driver without any indicators or any precautionary measures due to darkness the said lorry not visible to the RTC driver, the bus hit the lorry on its back side at that time the wife of complainant Sarojana Devi sat behind the seat of driver due to which she sustained head injuries and died.
Fair 7 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
Extract of Evidence on Record:
11.PW-1 is the complainant deposed in his chief examination that, on 14.10.2015, his wife, LW-2/Rajitha and L.W-3/Rohan Babu went to
Hyderabad and while they were returning in RTC Bus from Hyderabad to
Jagtial, meanwhile when they reached Thimmapur the said RTC Bus dashed to the stationed lorry, his wife was sitting in front seat his wife's head hit to the rod in the bus as a result, she sustained head injury and she was shifted to
Civil Hospital, Karimnagar for treatment. PW-1 further deposed that, in hospital doctors declared his wife as dead. Thereafter, he went to police station and lodged report/Ex.P1. PW-1 lastly deposed that, police examined him and recorded his statement.
12.PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that, he was not present in the said
RTC Bus at the time of alleged incident. PW-1 deposed that, he was in Jagtial at the time of receiving phone call. He further deposed that, it took one hour for him to reach Karimnagar. PW-1 further deposed that, he do not remember at what time police examined him. He further deposed that, on the same day of alleged incident police examined him.
13.PW-2 is the daughter in law of PW-1 deposed in her chief examination that, on 14.10.2015, she along with her son and her mother-in-law went to
Hyderabad for health checkup, after the completion of checkup, while they
Fair 8 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR were returning in RTC Jagtial Depot Bus from Hyderabad to Jagtial, meanwhile at Thimmapur, RK Colony near Masjid there was one stationed lorry no indicators were present to the said lorry, the said RTC Bus hit to the stationed lorry, her mother-in-law was sitting in the seat behind to the seat of driver, herself and her son were sitting in the behind seat of her mother-in- law, due to the hitting of bus to the stationed lorry, her mother-in-law head hit to the rod between both of their seats, as a results, she sustained injury on her head. PW-2 further deposed that, she also sustained chin injury, her son also sustained on his knee, then her mother-in-law was shifted to Karimnagar in 108 ambulance along with herself and her son also went to the hospital.
She further deposed that, she informed about the accident to P.W-1. She further deposed that, in the hospital doctor declared her mother-in-law dead after the checkup. She further deposed that, she cannot identify the driver of lorry. PW-2 further deposed that, police examined her and recorded her statement.
14.PW-2 deposed in her cross examination that, the lights in the bus were off while they were traveling in the night hours, she was awake at that time. She further deposed that, police examined her on the date of alleged incident in
Civil hospital. She also deposed that, she do not remember the time. PW-2 further deposed in her cross examination that, she did not state to police that her son sustained injury on his knee. She also deposed that, doctor applied stitches on her chin for the injury sustained by her. She also deposed that,
Fair 9 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR she did not state that she sustained injury on her chin.
15.PW-3 is the grand son of PW-1 deposed in his chief examination that, on 14
October, 2015, himself along with deceased and P.W-2 went to Hyderabad, after completion of checkup in hospital, they boarded bus in MGBS,
Hyderabad at around 7.30 pm, meanwhile at Thimmapur RK Colony near
Masjid, one stationed lorry was present without any indicators and without any lights, signs, their bus in which they were travelling dashed to the said stationed lorry, at that time deceased head was hit to the TV stand which is between driver seat and front seat, as a result she sustained head injury. He further deposed that, he also sustained injury on his left knee. He also deposed that, PW-2 sustained injury on her chin. PW-3 further deposed that, they shifted deceased to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar in 108 ambulance, after checking doctor declared that his grand mother as dead. PW-3 lastly deposed that, police examined him and recorded his statement.
16.PW-3 deposed in his cross examination that, at the time of accident, he was studying intermediate 1 year at Hyderanagar, Hyderabad. He further deposed that, police examined him in hospital. PW-3 further deposed that, PW-2 and himself did not take any treatment in hospital. He adds that he and P.W-2 took first aid treatment. He further deposed that, at the time of accident he was in half sleep. PW-3 admitted in his cross examination that, he did not state to police that himself and P.W-2 sustained knee and chin injuries. He further
Fair 10 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR admitted that, after the accident he had gone blank.
17.PW-4 is the eye witness deposed in his chief examination that, in the year 2015, he was going to his home from Karimnagar there is a lorry bearing no.
6871 Stopped on the road without any indications. He further deposed that, a bus coming from Hyderabad ie, Jagtial depot, as there is no indication from lorry the bus dashed to the lorry. PW-4 further deposed that, RTC driver was strucked in the bus. He also deposed that, one lady was injured severely. He further deposed that, he called police and ambulance and one person was died. PW-4 further deposed that, he can identify the Lorry driver/Accused.
PW-4 lastly deposed that, police examined him and recorded his statement.
18.PW-4 deposed in his cross examination that, he has seen the lorry drive at the place of accident. He admitted in his cross examination that, he has not stated before the police that he has seen lorry driver at the place of accident.
He further admitted that, he has not stated before the police to that he can identified the driver if he shown to him. PW-4 further admitted that, he has not stated before the police about the identification particulars of the driver. He further deposed that, he do not know the driver prior to incident. PW-4 admitted that, he has identified driver in the court after laps of 9 years. He also admitted that, police did not conducted test Identification parade. PW-4 further deposed that, police examined him on the same day night at the place of alleged accident.
Fair 11 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
19.PW-5 is the driver of RTC bus and injured deposed in his chief examination that, when he was working as Jagtial Depot RTC Driver. He further deposed that, on 14.10.2015, at around night 11pm, while he was coming from
Hyderabad to Jagtial at Ramakrishna colony of Thimmapur one lorry B.No.
AP-15-X-6871 was standing on the road without any indicators and signs by seeing that he suddenly applied break, due to such uncontrol over the bus he dashed the said lorry. He also deposed that, he sustained Injuries to the hands, legs and Chin and groin area and other two to three peoples were injured, one lady person who sat on the 2nd seat was died. He further deposed that, he came to know about the lady after the next day of incident. PW-5 lastly deposed that, police examined him and recorded his statement.
20.PW-5 admitted in his cross examination that, the alleged Highway is a 4 line road with divider. PW-5 admitted in his cross examination that, within the visible light of 50 feets there is a straight way. He further admitted that, as per their RTC rules there is a mandatory eye test to the drivers who crossed the age of 45 years. PW-5 lastly deposed in his cross examination that, police examined him and recorded his statement after the 3 to 4 days of the Incident at the Care Hospital, Hyderabad.
21.PW-6 is the doctor deposed in her evidence that, on 15.10.2015, she received a requisition from SHO PS LMD Colony to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased/V.Sarojana, accordingly,
Fair 12 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR she found the external injuries and internal injuries as mentioned in Col.No.11 of PME. She further deposed that, cause of death intracerebral bleeding (head injury) due to RTA, accordingly, she issued PME report/Ex.P2.
22.PW-7 is the passenger of RTC bus deposed in her chief examination that, on 14.10.2015 while she along with her father were coming from Hyderabad to
Jagithyal in RTC Bus. B.No AP-15-Z 0154 at around 11.45 PM when the bus reached at Thimmapur their bus was dashed to a lorry B.No. AP-15-X-6871.
Shel further deposed that, at that time she was sleeping in bus, after the accident she was unconsious for 2 hours, due to such accident her left leg was got fractured and her father sustained Injuries to his spinal cord, after that they were shifted to Sairam hospital in 108 ambulance. PW-7 lastly deposed that, police examined her and recorded her statement.
23.PW-8 is the another passenger in the RTC bus deposed that, in the year 2015 he came from Dubai to India, while so, he was boarded a RTC bus in
Hyderabad to go his home town, when their bus reached at Thimmapur village, Karimnagar, their bus dashed to a lorry which was parked on road, due to such accident he was sustained injuries on his left thigh. Later he was shifted to Sai Ram hospital Karimnagar. PW-8 lastly deposed that, police examined him and recorded his statement.
Fair 13 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
24.PW-8 admitted in his cross examination that, at the time of accident he was in sleep. He denied the suggestion that, police never examined nor recorded his statement.
25.PW-9 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed in his chief examination that, on 15.10.2015, at government hospital, Karimnagar police
LMD colony conducted inquest panchanama of deceased/V.Sarojini Devi. He further deposed that, he observed head injury over the dead body of deceased. He also deposed that, he know the contents of the inquest, police read over the contents of the inquest, later he put on sign to the inquest panchanama/Ex.P3.
26.PW-10 is the panch witness for crime detail form deposed in his chief examination that, on 15.10.2015, police LMD Colony called himself and LW- 15/S.Shivaraj and conducted Crime Detail Form in a accident case at
Ramakrishna colony nearby Masjid in his presence, read over the contents of it to him.
27.PW-10 deposed in his cross examination that, he know the contents of CDF.
He further deposed that, he do not remember the time of CDF panchanama even he do not remember whether it is conducted the forenoon or afternoon.
PW-10 further deposed in his cross examination that, a bus and lorry were involved in the alleged accident and they were present in the scene of
Fair 14 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR offence. He also deposed that, both vehicles were opposite to each other.
PW-10 lastly deposed that, he do not remember direction of bus and lorry.
28.PW-11 is the investigating officer who in his evidence spoke about registration of the case by her under Ex.P5/FIR and also about his conducting investigation in the matter, PW-11 lastly deposed that after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304-A, 337, 338 of IPC.
29.PW-11 admitted in his cross examination that, none of the witnesses examined by him stated about the name and identical features of deiver of crime vehicle. He further admitted that, he has not forwarded alleged RTC bus for motor vehicle inspector. He also admitted that, there amy be possibility of Mechanical defects in alleged RTC bus.
Appreciation of evidence and facts:
30.Upon careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is proceeded to discuss as follows:
31.Firstly, with regard to factum of accident and cause of death of deceased/ sarojana, the PW-1, though not an eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed that on 14.10.2015 his wife/deceased along with PW-2 and PW-3 went to
Hyderabad and while returning in RTC bus, the said bus dashed against a
Fair 15 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR stationed lorry near Thimmapur. He further stated that his wife sustained severe head injury and later died in the hospital. His evidence regarding receipt of information about the accident, shifting of the deceased to hospital and lodging of report under Ex.P1 remained substantially unshaken in cross- examination.
32.Further, PW-2 and PW-3, who are eye witnesses and also were travelling along with the deceased in the same RTC bus. PW-2 categorically deposed that after completion of medical checkup at Hyderabad, they boarded RTC
Jagtial Depot bus and while the bus reached RK Colony near Masjid at
Thimmapur, the bus dashed against a stationed lorry. She specifically stated that the deceased was sitting behind the driver’s seat and due to the impact her head struck against the rod between the seats resulting in bleeding injury.
PW-2 also stated that immediately after the accident the deceased was shifted in 108 ambulance to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar, where doctors declared her dead. Her testimony clearly establishes not only the occurrence of accident but also the manner in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries in the said occurrence.
33.The evidence of PW-3, grandson of the deceased, substantially corroborates the testimony of PW-2 on all material particulars. PW-3 deposed that while they were returning from Hyderabad in RTC bus, at Thimmapur RK Colony near Masjid the bus dashed against a stationed lorry. He specifically stated
Fair 16 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR that due to the impact the head of the deceased hit against the TV stand situated between the driver seat and front seat resulting in head injury. He further stated that the deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar where doctors declared her dead. The evidence of PW-3 is natural, consistent and materially corroborative of the testimony of PW-2 regarding the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by the deceased.
34.Thus, the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3 also receive substantial corroboration from independent passengers examined by prosecution. PW-7, another passenger travelling in the RTC bus, deposed that while travelling from Hyderabad to Jagtial, at about 11.45 PM near Thimmapur the RTC bus dashed against lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871. She further stated that due to the impact she herself sustained fracture injury and her father also sustained injuries. Likewise, PW-8 also deposed that while travelling in RTC bus from
Hyderabad, near Thimmapur village the bus dashed against a parked lorry and he sustained injuries. Though PW-7 and PW-8 admitted that they were asleep immediately prior to the accident, their testimony nevertheless clearly establishes that the collision between the RTC bus and lorry did in fact occur at the stated place and time.
35.Further PW-4, an independent witness, who deposed that while he was returning from Karimnagar he noticed a lorry stationed on the road and subsequently the RTC bus coming from Hyderabad dashed against it. He
Fair 17 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR further stated that one lady passenger sustained severe injuries and later died. The evidence of PW-4 lends independent assurance regarding the occurrence of accident involving the said bus and lorry near Ramakrishna
Colony, Thimmapur.
36.The testimony of PW-5, who was himself the driver of the RTC bus and also an injured witness, carries considerable evidentiary value regarding occurrence of the accident. PW-5 categorically stated that on 14.10.2015 while he was driving RTC bus from Hyderabad to Jagtial, near Ramakrishna
Colony at Thimmapur the bus dashed against lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 stationed on the road. He further deposed that due to the impact several passengers sustained injuries and one lady passenger sitting in the second seat later died. The evidence of PW-5, being the driver of the bus directly involved in the accident, strongly corroborates the prosecution case regarding the factum of accident.
37.Thus, from the consistent testimonies of PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-7 and PW-8, this Court finds no reason to doubt that the accident in question did occur during the intervening night of 14/15.10.2015 involving RTC bus bearing No.AP-15-Z-0154 and lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 near
Ramakrishna Colony, Thimmapur.
Fair 18 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
38.Further, in order to establish the cause of death of deceased/Sarojana Devi, the prosecution examined PW-6, the doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW-6 deposed that on 15.10.2015, upon receipt of requisition from SHO, LMD Colony Police
Station, she conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased/Sarojana Devi. She stated that during the course of postmortem examination she noticed both external and internal injuries as mentioned in
Column No.11 of the Postmortem Examination Report/Ex.P2. PW-6 categorically opined that the cause of death was “intracerebral bleeding due to head injury sustained in road traffic accident.” The medical evidence of
PW-6 fully corroborates the ocular testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, who consistently deposed that during the collision the head of the deceased struck against the rod/TV stand situated in the bus, resulting in severe head injury.
The opinion rendered by PW-6 remained unshaken during cross-examination and nothing material was elicited to discredit either her professional competence or the findings recorded in Ex.P2/Postmortem Examination
Report.
39.Further, the evidence of PW-9, who acted as inquest panch witness, further strengthens the prosecution case regarding cause of death. PW-9 deposed that police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased at Government
Hospital, Karimnagar and during the inquest he observed head injury over the dead body. He further stated that police read over contents of the inquest
Fair 19 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR panchanama/Ex.P3 and thereafter he signed the same. The evidence of PW- 9 corroborates the existence of visible head injury on the deceased immediately after the accident. Moreover, the inquest panchanama under
Ex.P3 also assume importance because they reflect the apparent cause of death, nature of injuries and surrounding circumstances immediately after occurrence. Thus, the inquest report coupled with PME report clearly establish that the deceased succumbed to head injury sustained in the road traffic accident and not due to any intervening or unrelated cause.
40.Further, with regard to scene of offence, the PW-10, who acted as panch witness for Crime Detail Form (CDF). PW-10 deposed that on 15.10.2015 police called him and another panch witness to Ramakrishna Colony near
Masjid and conducted Crime Detail Form proceedings at the scene of accident involving the RTC bus and lorry. He specifically stated that both the vehicles were present at the scene of offence at the time of preparation of
CDF. His evidence establishes the location and physical presence of the accident vehicles at the spot immediately after the incident. Though PW-10 stated in cross-examination that he did not remember the exact time or direction of vehicles, such minor lapses are but natural considering the passage of time between occurrence and deposition before Court. These omissions do not affect the core prosecution case regarding the scene of offence. Importantly, PW-10 consistently maintained that both the RTC bus and lorry involved in the accident were present at the scene when police
Fair 20 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR conducted CDF proceedings. The testimony of PW-10 regarding preparation of Crime Detail Form also receives corroboration from the evidence of
Investigating Officer/PW-11, who deposed about registration of crime, visiting scene of offence and conducting investigation. The FIR, CDF proceedings and oral testimonies of witnesses collectively establish that the scene of offence was situated near Ramakrishna Colony adjacent to Masjid at
Thimmapur on Rajiv Highway road.
41.Therefore, upon cumulative appreciation of the evidence of eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, independent passengers, doctor, inquest panch witness and CDF panch witness, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the night of 14.10.2015 an accident occurred involving RTC bus bearing No.AP-15-Z-0154 and lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 near Ramakrishna Colony, Thimmapur; that deceased/Sarojana Devi sustained severe head injury in the said accident; and that she subsequently died due to intracerebral bleeding consequent to such head injury as established by the medical evidence under
Ex.P2/Postmortem Examination Report and Ex.P3/Inquest Panchanama.
42.However, merely because the prosecution succeeded in proving the occurrence of accident and the death of deceased in the said accident, the same by itself is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability upon the accused under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. The prosecution is further required
Fair 21 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred solely due to the rash or negligent act of the accused and that such negligence was of such degree as to attract criminal culpability. In criminal law, negligence cannot be presumed merely from the happening of accident. The burden always lies upon the prosecution to affirmatively establish rashness or negligence by cogent, convincing and reliable evidence.
43.In the present case, the prosecution case is that the accused parked lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 on the highway road during night hours without any indicators, parking lights or precautionary measures and due to such negligent parking the RTC bus dashed against the rear portion of the lorry. To establish this aspect, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of
PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. However, on careful scrutiny, their evidence does not conclusively establish criminal negligence on the part of accused and, on the contrary, creates substantial doubt regarding the actual manner in which the accident occurred.
44.PW-2 stated that the stationed lorry had no indicators and that the bus dashed against it during night hours. Similarly, PW-3 also stated that there were no lights, signs or indicators to the stationed lorry. However, both these witnesses admittedly were passengers inside the bus during late night hours and were seated behind the deceased. Their opportunity to carefully observe the external condition of the lorry immediately prior to impact was naturally
Fair 22 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR limited. More importantly, PW-2 admitted in her cross-examination that the lights inside the bus were switched off during travel in the night. PW-3 admitted that he was in “half sleep” at the time of accident and after the accident he “went blank”. These admissions materially weaken the reliability of their observations regarding absence of indicators or precautionary signs on the lorry.
45.The evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 also does not assist the prosecution on the aspect of rashness or negligence. Both these witnesses admitted that they were asleep at the time of accident. Therefore, neither of them actually witnessed whether the lorry was parked negligently, whether indicators were absent or whether the RTC bus driver failed to exercise proper care. Their evidence only proves the occurrence of collision and injuries, but not the cause of accident.
46.The prosecution further relied upon the testimony of PW-4, who was cited as an independent eyewitness. PW-4 stated that the lorry was stopped on the road without indications and that the RTC bus dashed against it. However, his evidence suffers from serious infirmities. In cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that he had not stated before police that he saw the driver of the lorry at the spot, nor had he stated that he could identify the driver. He further admitted that he identified the accused in Court for the first time after a lapse of nearly nine years and that no Test Identification Parade was conducted.
Fair 23 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
47.These omissions materially affect the credibility of PW-4 not only regarding identity of accused but also regarding his actual presence and observations at the spot. Had PW-4 truly witnessed the occurrence in the manner deposed by him, the natural conduct would have been to disclose all such material particulars to police during investigation itself. The improvements made during trial therefore render his evidence unsafe to place implicit reliance upon, particularly in a criminal trial where guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
48.The evidence of PW-5, who was the RTC bus driver himself, assumes crucial significance in deciding the actual manner of accident. Though PW-5 attempted to attribute fault to the stationed lorry by stating that it was parked without indicators or signs, his own admissions in cross-examination probabilise contributory negligence on his part. PW-5 admitted that the alleged road was a four-line highway with divider and that there existed straight visibility up to approximately 50 feet. This admission is highly significant. It is pertinent to say that, on a straight four-line highway, a prudent driver exercising reasonable care and caution is expected to maintain proper speed, keep vigilant watch over the road ahead and keep the vehicle under sufficient control so as to avoid collision within the visible distance, particularly during night travel. When admittedly there was straight visibility up to about 50 feet, the RTC driver ought to have noticed the stationed lorry from a considerable distance itself. In ordinary course of human conduct, upon
Fair 24 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR noticing a parked vehicle ahead on a straight road, a careful driver would either slow down the vehicle, apply brakes, swerve cautiously or make every possible attempt to avoid or at least mitigate the impact of collision.
49.However, surprisingly, none of the prosecution witnesses stated that the RTC driver applied sudden brakes or made any desperate attempt to avert the accident. Neither PW-2 nor PW-3, who were awake according to their version, deposed that the driver applied brakes before impact. Even PW-5 himself did not specifically state that he sounded horn continuously, swerved the vehicle or took immediate evasive action except making a bald statement that he “suddenly applied brake”. Had there been a forceful or emergency braking immediately before collision, naturally the passengers travelling in the bus would have noticed the same and spoken about it in their evidence. The complete silence of all material witnesses on this important aspect creates a serious dent in the prosecution case.
50.Further, if the bus driver had indeed noticed the lorry only at the very last moment despite straight visibility on a four-lane highway, such circumstance itself indicates lack of proper vigilance or excessive speed on his part. A driver operating a heavy passenger vehicle during night hours carries a higher degree of responsibility towards passenger safety. Failure to maintain sufficient stopping distance and failure to timely react to a visible obstruction on a straight road cannot be lightly ignored.
Fair 25 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
51.The manner in which the RTC bus directly crashed into the rear side of the stationed lorry also probabilises that the bus was not under proper control at the relevant time. In the absence of evidence regarding skid marks, emergency braking, evasive maneuvering or other precautionary action by the bus driver, it becomes unsafe to conclude that the accident occurred solely due to negligent parking of the lorry. On the contrary, the surrounding circumstances strongly suggest that negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver substantially contributed to the occurrence of accident.
52.Further, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution did not place any evidence regarding the speed of the RTC bus, condition of brakes, visibility range, reaction time of driver or exact positioning of the lorry on road. No scientific evidence such as skid marks, braking distance analysis or expert opinion was collected during investigation. In absence of such evidence, it becomes unsafe to conclusively hold that the parked lorry alone was responsible for the accident. Moreover, the investigating officer/PW-11 admitted in cross- examination that the RTC bus was not sent for mechanical inspection by
Motor Vehicle Inspector. He further admitted that there may be possibility of mechanical defects in the RTC bus. This admission creates another serious lacuna in the prosecution case. In a case involving collision between two heavy vehicles during night hours, mechanical condition of the bus becomes an important circumstance to ascertain the true cause of accident. Failure of the investigating agency to subject the bus to mechanical inspection leaves
Fair 26 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR open the possibility that brake failure or some other mechanical defect may also have contributed to the occurrence.
53.It is a settled principle of law that to constitute an offence under Section 304-A
IPC, the negligence alleged must be gross and of such nature that it can be termed culpable negligence. Every accident or error of judgment does not amount to criminal negligence. In cases arising out of road accidents, the prosecution must establish a direct nexus between the negligent act of accused and the resultant death. Where two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, the one favourable to accused must necessarily be adopted.
54.In the present case, the material on record gives rise to multiple possibilities.
One possibility is that the lorry might have been improperly parked without indicators. The other equally probable possibility is that the RTC driver, while driving during late night hours, failed to maintain proper vigilance or control over the bus and consequently rammed into the stationed vehicle. Yet another possibility, as admitted by PW-11, is existence of mechanical defect in the bus. The prosecution failed to eliminate these possibilities through reliable evidence. Thus, the investigation conducted in the present case also appears incomplete and casual. Such serious lapses materially prejudice the prosecution case because criminal conviction cannot rest upon assumptions or probabilities.
Fair 27 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
55.In view of the aforesaid discussion and upon careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established that on the night of 14.10.2015 an accident occurred involving RTC bus bearing
No.AP-15-Z-0154 and lorry bearing No.AP-15-X-6871 near Ramakrishna
Colony, Thimmapur, and that deceased/Sarojana Devi sustained fatal head injury in the said accident and subsequently died due to intracerebral bleeding as duly proved through the evidence of PW-6 and
Ex.P2/Postmortem Examination Report. The scene of offence and occurrence of accident also stand corroborated by the evidence of eyewitnesses, injured passengers, inquest panch witness and Crime Detail Form panch witness.
However, the prosecution utterly failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred solely due to the rash or negligent act of the accused. The evidence on record suffers from material omissions, inconsistencies and investigative lapses. The identity of the accused as driver of the lorry at the relevant point of time remains doubtful. Further, the admissions of PW-5 coupled with surrounding circumstances probabilise contributory negligence on the part of the RTC bus driver. The prosecution also failed to rule out the possibility of mechanical defect in the RTC bus due to non-conduct of Motor Vehicle Inspection. Thus, the evidence brought on record falls short of the standard required to fasten criminal liability under
Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC. It is a settled principle of criminal
Fair 28 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR jurisprudence that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof and the benefit of every reasonable doubt must necessarily go in favour of the accused. Accordingly, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
56. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under
Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of all the charges leveled against him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal period. As there is no property deposited in this case, there is no order as to the property.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28thday of April, 2026.
Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. (Excise) cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
Prosecution Name of Description Witness No. Witness 1V.Gouri ShankarComplainant/First Informant 2V.RajithaDaughter in law of PW-1 3V.Rohan BabuGrand son of PW-1 4D.Sampath ReddyEye witness 5T.Murali MohanDriver of RTC bus and injured
Fair 29 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR 6Dr.HarathiDoctor 7Farhana BegumPasanger 8A.RaviPassanger 9B.Venugopal GoudPanch witness for inquest panchanama 10S.ParshaiahPanch witness for CDF 11S.Satheesh KumarInvestigating Officer
Defence Name of Description
Witness No. Witness --Nil--
EXHIBITS MARKED
Exhibit Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
No.
1ReportPW-1 2Postmortem examinationPW-6 report 3Inquest PanchanamaPW-9 4Crime Detail FormPW-10 5First Information ReportPW-11 6Medical certificate of PW-5PW-11 7Medical certificate of LW-PW-11 8/Syed Khaja Mohinuddin 8Medical certificate of PW-7PW-11 9Medical certificate of LW-PW-18 10/A.Ravi
Fair 30 of 30 CC No.144/2016 (New CC No.661/2018) Spl.JMFC (Excise), KNR
Defence Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by
Exhibit No.
--Nil--
Material Objects
--Nil--
Spl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C. (Excise) cum IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar.