CC.5088/20221
Fair Copy
IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT WARANGAL
Friday, this the 30th day of May, 2025
Present: Ms.B.V.V. Chandraprasanna II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Warangal.
CC.No. 5088 OF 2022
(Old CC.No. 27 OF 2017)
(Old CC.No. 428 OF 2012)
Between :
The State of Telangana, rep. through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wardhannapet, Warangal Rural District.
... Complainant
AND
MD.Farooq, S/o Fazal, Age: 33 yrs, Caste: Muslim, Occ : Driver of lorry bearing No.AP 29.B.0599, R/o. Jiaullakhan, II Doctors Colony, Opposite 87 quarter, Warangal.
... Accused
This case is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and Sri P.Narsimha Ramulu, Advocate for the Accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
I. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Wardhannapet, Warangal Rural
District, has filed charge sheet in Crime No.122 of 2012 for the offence punishable under sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sec.
181, 183 of MV Act., [in short called as IPC for brevity] against Accused.
CC.5088/20222
Fair Copy
II. Case of the Prosecution in nutshell:
The prosecution case is that on 26.07.2012 at about 07:30 hours, while one Ooga Uttaraiah was waiting for a bus at Ellanda bus stop, the accused MD. Farooq, who was driving a lorry bearing No. AP 29 B 0599, allegedly drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed while proceeding from Khammam to Warangal, and dashed the deceased.
The said lorry also rammed into a nearby saloon shop, causing injuries to villagers Polepalli Sammaiah and Sathupalli Sampath, and also to four school children namely Pasunuti Soumith Reddy, Chidirala Nandu,
Manuka Pravalika, and Matam Pragnya, who were standing near the shop. The deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal by 108 ambulance and succumbed to his injuries at 10:45 AM on the same day.
Based on the report given by the complainant Ooga Venkatalaxmi, a case in
Crime No.122/2012 was registered under Sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of
IPC and Sections 181 and 183 of the M.V. Act.
During investigation, the Investigating Officer (LW29) recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., inspected the scene of offence, prepared the crime detail form, seized the offending vehicle in the presence of mediators, and conducted inquest over the dead body. The autopsy was performed by LW27, who opined the cause of death was due to
CC.5088/20223
Fair Copy "multiple injuries". The MVI (LW28) inspected the lorry and found no mechanical defects. The accused surrendered on 03.08.2012 and was arrested. It was found that the accused was not in possession of a valid driving license, though vehicle registration was in order. After completing the investigation, the IO filed the charge sheet before this Court.
III.This Court took cognizance for offences under Sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 IPC and Sections 181 and 183 of the M.V. Act, and issued summons to the accused. After appearance, copies were furnished under
Section 207 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation was explained under
Section 251 Cr.P.C., which the accused denied and claimed to be tried.
IV.During trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 22, marked Exhibits
P1 to P16, Ex. D1 was marked on behalf accused during the cross of Pw6.
and Lw3,19 and 21 were were given up by learned APPO. Evidence of
LWs 17, 22, 23, and 26 was closed as they could not be traced. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C., in which he denied the incriminating circumstances and did not adduce any defence evidence. The matter was thereafter heard and posted for judgment.
V.Perused the record. The learned APPO argued that the prosecution clinchingly proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
CC.5088/20224
Fair Copy
The learned counsel for accused argued that, in Ex P4 the name of Ooga
Uttaraiah was not mentioned. Identification of accused before the court only not suffice to prove the accused himself drove the vehicle. It is easy to identify the accused as he is the one person who stood in accused place
before the court during the course of trial. During the cross of Pw5 he stated
that his statement was recorded at around 9.00 AM to 10 AM but the complaint was given at 12.00 AM how the investigating officer recorded his statement prior to Ex.P1 and the owner of the hotel namely Chidirala Murali was not examined. The investigating officer failed to conduct Test
Identification parade to identify the accused by the eye witnesses during the course of investigation. The 161 statement of Pw6 was marked as Ex.D1 as he stated in his cross examination he did not stated before police as it in his 161 statement. Further he argued that, Pw10 first shifted to private Hospital at Dr. Ravinder Reddy and thereafter to Jaya Hospital and from there he shifted to Rainbow hospital. But the investigating officer did not examine the said Ravinder Reddy. Pw12 stated in her chief examination she sustained injuries on her left eye but in her medical certificate which was marked as
Ex.P8 it was clearly mentioned that she sustained injury on her left thigh and it is a major contradiction. And also Pw.21 stated in her chief examination
CC.5088/20225
Fair Copy affidavit she sustained injury on her right forehead but in Ex.P9 it was mentioned as knee injury. Further he argued that Lw.17 Raju Rajil Babu in whose presence the accused is said to be surrendered he was not examined and section 181 and 183 of Motor vehicles Act were even not attempted to proved by the prosecution. Hence the prosecution failed to explain these gaps and contradictions beyond reasonable doubt hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.
VI. Now the point for determination is :
"Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence under sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of Indian Penal
Code, Sec. 181, 183 of MV Act., beyond all reasonable doubt”?
VII. POINT: In order to prove the present case, the prosecution has
to prove the ingredients mentioned under sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279
of Indian Penal Code, Sec. 181, 183 of MV Act., beyond all reasonable
doubt.
Before going to discussion it is safe to recollect the relevant legal
provisions involved in this case.
➢ Section 304-A IPC (Causing death by negligence): Requires proof that the death of a person occurred due to rash or negligent act of the accused, without any intention or knowledge to cause death.
➢ Section 338 IPC (Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others):
CC.5088/20226
Fair Copy
The prosecution must prove that the accused caused grievous hurt to another person by a rash or negligent act endangering human life.
➢ Section 337 IPC (Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety): The accused must be shown to have caused hurt to any person by a rash or negligent act that endangered human life or personal safety.
➢ Section 279 IPC (Rash driving or riding on a public way): The act of driving in a rash or negligent manner on a public way must be established.
➢ Sections 181 and 183 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Driving without license and driving dangerously): Section 181 requires proof that the vehicle was driven by a person not holding a valid driving license. Section 183 criminalizes driving in a dangerous manner likely to cause hurt or injury.
VIII. Appreciation of Evidence and law:
1) PW1 – O. Venkat Laxmi (Defacto-complainant and wife of the deceased):
PW1 deposed that her husband left home around 7:00 AM to sell fruits and was later involved in a road traffic accident, which resulted in his death. She received the information from LW7 and
LW8 and rushed to the scene, finding her husband grievously injured.
She shifted him to MGM Hospital, where he succumbed. She lodged a complaint, which was scribed by one Kumaraswamy since she is illiterate.
Her evidence is based on hearsay as she was not present at the time of the accident but is relevant for proving the sequence of events
CC.5088/20227
Fair Copy post-accident and the lodging of FIR (Ex.P1). Her testimony is consistent and natural and remained unshaken in cross-examination.
2) PW2 – P. Sammaiah (Eye-witness):
PW2 is a direct eyewitness who categorically deposed that the deceased was selling fruits when a lorry driven at high speed dashed into a barber shop and then hit the deceased and two children. He stated that the deceased was shifted to MGM Hospital, where he died later. He also claimed he could identify the lorry driver.
His version is direct, ocular, and cogent. No cross-examination was conducted despite recall, which lends his testimony unimpeached probative value.
3) PW3 – Sunkari Uppalaiah (Eye-witness):
PW3 corroborated PW2, stating he witnessed the lorry hitting the barber shop and then the deceased. He confirmed the deceased was taken to hospital where he died. He turned hostile and his 161 statementmarkedasEx.P2.
Although confronted in cross-examination with contradictions in his prior police statement, he firmly denied the suggestion of false implication. His evidence supports the occurrence of the accident and the impact on the deceased.
4) PW4 – B. Swamy (Brother-in-law of the deceased):
PW4 deposed based on information received from others and was not an eyewitness to the actual impact. He arrived at the spot soon after the incident and accompanied the deceased to the hospital, where he died during treatment.
Though not an eyewitness, his testimony supports the post-
CC.5088/20228
Fair Copy accident events and identification of the victim and the involvement of a lorry bearing No. 0599. His evidence remained unchallenged as there was no cross-examination.
5) PW5 – Rodda Yakaiah (Eye-witness):
PW5 vividly described the incident, confirming that the lorry hit a barber shop and then the deceased and some children, and that the vehicle was at high speed. He claimed he saw the driver and could identify him. He also provided specific details about the road, location of buses, and surrounding area.
His cross-examination was exhaustive, but he firmly stood by his version and refuted all suggestions of tutoring or false implication.
He is a reliable and material witness who corroborates the prosecution case in essential particulars.
6) PW6 – Jannu Bixapathi (Photographer):
PW6 took photographs of the deceased’s body at MGM Hospital on police request. Ex.P3 are the said photographs. He admitted he did not seal the photographs but confirmed handing them over to police.
Ex.P3 photographs along with CD were marked through Pw6. During his cross examination the learned counsel for accused confronted his 161 statement but he stated that the recitals in 161 statement were not stated by him and the same is marked as Ex.D1.
Although his role is limited, his evidence helps establish identity and condition of the deceased. No major inconsistencies or material omissions noted.
7) PW7 – P. Sammaiah (Owner of the barber shop and eye- witness):
CC.5088/20229
Fair Copy
PW7 stated that while he was in his salon, the lorry crashed into his shop, causing him to fall unconscious. He learned of the remaining details later from relatives. He corroborated in his police statement that the lorry came at high speed, hit the deceased and his shop, and injuredseveralpersonsinside.
His court testimony was partially affected due to loss of memory about the subsequent events, but his previous police statement lends corroboration to other eyewitnesses' versions. Despite limited memory, he is a supporting witness to the scene of accident.
8) PW8 / LW11 – Sathupalli Sampath
PW8 is an injured eyewitness who was present at the place of incident inside the saloon shop of PW7. He deposed that on 26.07.2012 at about 7:00 a.m., while he was getting shaved inside the shop, a lorry coming from Khammam side and proceeding towards
Warangal suddenly dashed into the saloon shop, as a result of which he sustained severe injuries to his head, right shoulder and leg, and fell unconscious. He further stated that the said lorry, after hitting the saloon, also ran over the deceased Uthraiah. He regained consciousness at about 5 or 6 p.m., and was then informed by the police that the deceased had died while undergoing treatment.
PW8 candidly admitted that he did not see the lorry driver, nor did he note the registration number of the vehicle. His evidence about the actual moment of the crash and its consequences is first- hand and spontaneous, lending it credibility.
In cross-examination, he clarified that the bus stop was at some distance from the saloon and that while facing the mirror during the
CC.5088/202210
Fair Copy shave, he could observe the road and vehicles behind him via the mirror. Though he could not recall if he had mentioned certain details in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he was consistent about the main event of the lorry crashing into the saloon and the resultant injuries. His explanation for not being aware of other facts due to his unconscious state appears plausible.
9) PW9 / LW14 – Chidirala Harshavardhan @ Nandu
PW9 is another injured eyewitness, a school student, who deposed that at the relevant time he was waiting at the bus stop to go to school when a lorry first dashed into the saloon shop and thereafter hit him and other students including Sowmya (LW15), Pravalika (LW13), and one more person. He stated that he became unconscious due to the impact and did not know what happened thereafter. He could not identify the lorry number or its driver but confirmed that the lorry came from the right side direction.
During cross-examination, PW9 affirmed that he was accompanied by his parents at the bus stop and that he had informed the police only about the lorry crashing into the saloon and thereafter to the persons waiting. His testimony corroborates the version of PW8 regarding the sequence of impact and further supports the fact that the accident occurred at the bus stop area, resulting in injuries to multiple individuals. His unconsciousness immediately after the incident justifies his limited recall.
CC.5088/202211
Fair Copy
10) PW10 / LW15 – Pasunooti Soumith Reddy
PW10, also an injured eyewitness, testified that on the fateful day, he was standing at the bus stop along with Harshavardhan (PW9),
Pravalika (LW13), Pragna (LW12), and an elderly person (identified as the deceased). He stated that a lorry first dashed the saloon and then hit the old man and him, causing injuries. He mentioned that due to the injuries sustained by the elderly person, he succumbed to the injuries. PW10 and others were initially shifted to a private hospital (Dr. Ravinder Reddy), then to Jaya Hospital and finally to
Rainbow Hospital for treatment. He was unable to remember the vehicle number but confirmed that the lorry was loaded with granite and he too became unconscious.
During in his cross-examination, he confirmed that the incident occurred around 7:00 to 7:30 a.m., and that there was no rainfall. He reiterated the core facts from his chief-examination and clarified that he had provided a basic account of the incident to the police. His version is consistent with those of PW8 and PW9, and his detail about the sequence of hospitalizations further adds veracity and coherence to the prosecution’s case.
11) PW11/M. Dudaiah, an eye witness to the incident and resident of the same village as LW8/Yakaiah, provided a direct account of the fatal accident. He stated that while on his way to his agricultural well at about 7:00 to 7:30 AM, he witnessed a lorry loaded with granite being driven at high speed and in a negligent manner, which first hit a group of children standing near the road, then collided with a barber shop, and subsequently dashed against the Ambedkar statue before
CC.5088/202212
Fair Copy halting. He categorically stated that due to the said accident, a street vendor by name Uttaraiah sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed at MGM Hospital. He further deposed that he knew the deceased Uttaraiah personally as he used to sell fruits in their village.
During cross-examination, PW11 maintained consistency regarding his presence at the scene. He clarified that he was on his way to his agricultural well and reached the spot near the bus stand shortly after
LW8/Yakaiah, who was taking tea at that time. Though some discrepancies were elicited regarding the route and distances, they do not materially affect his core testimony about witnessing the lorry strike the children and the deceased. He admitted he could not recall the lorry number due to being illiterate and acknowledged that he did not state in his police statement (u/s 161 CrPC) that he could identify the accused. However, the attempt to discredit him on these grounds does not succeed in fully impeaching his credibility, especially when the gist of his narration remains intact. His account regarding the lorry’s movement between two stationary RTC buses and its uncontrolled progression into pedestrians and structures adds weight to the allegation of rash and negligent driving.
12) PW12/M. Pragnya, who was one of the injured children and an eye witness, vividly recalled the events of the morning. She testified that on 26.07.2012, while she was waiting at the bus stop near
Ambedkar statue along with PW9, PW10, and LW13 to board a school bus, the offending lorry overtook an auto and in a drunken and reckless state, the driver struck the elderly vendor Uttaraiah, the children, and the barber shop before coming to a stop near the statue.
CC.5088/202213
Fair Copy
She specifically attributed the rash act to the intoxicated state of the driver. She detailed the injuries suffered by herself and others— including eye injury to herself, brain injury to PW9, rib injury to
PW10, and minor injuries to LW13.
In her cross-examination, despite being of tender age at the time (12 years old, studying 9th class), PW12 withstood suggestions that sought to cast doubt on her ability to recognize the driver or know the deceased. She consistently maintained that she could identify the driver and that the incident took place in her immediate presence. She denied all suggestions that her identification was manipulated or tutored by the police. Her deposition finds strong corroboration from other witnesses and medical evidence. Being a direct victim, her testimony carries intrinsic probative value and appears trustworthy and coherent.
13) PW13/T. Kumaraswamy, is a panch witness who attested to the crime detail form (Ex.P4) and deposed that the scene of offence panchanama was conducted in his presence around 1:00 PM on the date of the incident. He confirmed that the lorry had dashed into the barber shop and Ambedkar statue, consistent with the version of the eye witnesses. He also stated that he was called while having tea in the nearby hotel and was present during the preparation of the panchanama. Ex P4 crime Detail form was marked through Pw13.
Though in his cross-examination he admitted that certain particulars (such as the lorry dashing the barber shop and statue) were not recorded in column no. 9 of the CDF, he maintained that the police had incorporated the scene observations as he had narrated them. The
CC.5088/202214
Fair Copy minor omissions in documentation do not dilute the core support lent by his presence and confirmation of the lorry’s trajectory.
14) PW14 / LW20 / S. Yellaiah – Panch Witness for Inquest
Panchanama
PW14 confirms that he was present during the inquest panchanama conducted on 26.07.2012 over the deceased Uttaraiah’s body at the
MGM Hospital Mortuary. Ex P5 inquest panchanama marked through
Pw14.
He testifies that the inquest was conducted between 2 PM to 4
PM, and he identified his signature on Ex.P5, the inquest panchanama.
He admits that the deceased was from his village, though not a relative.
PW14 also states that he was present at the hospital along with the deceased’s relatives and accompanied the body to the mortuary.
In his Cross-Examination:
Admits he signed the panchanama upon police request.
Denies the suggestion that no inquest was conducted in his presence or that he was unaware of its contents.
Appreciation:
PW14 is a formal witness whose testimony supports the procedural aspect of the case—specifically the proper conduct of the inquest. His presence during the inquest and the identification of his signature lend authenticity to Ex.P5. While he admits signing the panchanama at police request, he does not retract his presence or
CC.5088/202215
Fair Copy dispute the occurrence of the inquest. This testimony is credible and corroborative of procedural compliance, although his knowledge is limited to the inquest and not the accident itself.
15) PW15 / LW9 / Rapolu Ravi – Eye Witness to the Incident
PW15 states that he witnessed the accident while standing near a saloon shop around 7:30–8:00 AM. A lorry at high speed crashed into the shop, injuring several people including PW7, PW8, and the deceased Uttaraiah.He sustained minor injuries himself and helped shift the injured to the hospital. He confirms that Uttaraiah later succumbed to injuries. Over a turn he turned hostile his 161 statement was marked Ex P6.
In his Cross-Examination:
Could not recall the vehicle number or identify the driver due to passage of time.
Denies the suggestion that his deposition is false or influenced.
Appreciation:
PW15 is a key direct eyewitness whose testimony provides a clear and spontaneous account of the incident, including the speed of the lorry and the impact on victims. His minor injuries lend further credibility to his presence at the scene. Although he cannot identify the vehicle number or driver, which is understandable due to time lapse, his statement is otherwise consistent and reliable, significantly supporting the prosecution’s version of the incident.
CC.5088/202216
Fair Copy
16) PW16 / LW16 / Pawar Sunil – Alleged Eye Witness
PW16 denies knowledge of the incident, the lorry, or any involvement as a cleaner on the vehicle. He claims no facts of the case are known to him.
In his Cross-Examination:
Denies having made prior statements to the police and his 161 statement was marked as Ex.P7.
Suggests he is being falsely implicated and now testifying in favor of the accused.
Appreciation:
PW16 turns hostile, completely retracting from his earlier statement. His denial of knowing the accused or any facts of the case indicates non-cooperation or change of stance, possibly to shield the accused. His testimony lacks credibility and does not aid the prosecution. However, his hostility may need to be examined in light of prior statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P7) to see if they can be relied upon as previous evidence under Section 157 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
17) PW17 / LW24 – Dr. P. Kali Prasad Rao
This witness is the medical officer who treated two injured victims, namely M. Pragna (LW12) and M. Pravallika (LW13), on the date of incident i.e., 26.07.2012 at Guardian Hospital. He deposed that both patients came with a history of road traffic accident (RTA) and he noted the following injuries: Ex P8 and P9 medical certificates of
CC.5088/202217
Fair Copy
Lw12 and 13 were marked through Pw17. M. Pragna: Contusion over the left side; simple in nature; advised two weeks bed rest.
M. Pravalika: Contusion over right knee; simple in nature; advised four weeks bed rest.
He issued Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, which are the medical certificates pertaining to the said injured.
In cross-examination, he fairly admitted that the certificates do not specify the time of injury and that patient identification marks were also not recorded. He also acknowledged the possibility that such injuries may result from falling on their own. However, he affirmed that injuries were noted as "fresh" in nature in Ex.P9 and that the injuries were consistent with a history of RTA, which corroborates the prosecution version of vehicular accident on that day. While the lack of time-stamping and identification details somewhat weakens the evidentiary value, the witness has largely supported the prosecution case medically and objectively.
18) PW18/LW27–Dr.B.Raju
This official witness conducted autopsy over the deceased and issued PME report and the same was marked as (Ex.P10). He deposed that he received requisition at 4:00 p.m. on 26.07.2012 and performed autopsy between 4:10 p.m. and 5:10 p.m. at MGM
Hospital. He noted multiple external and internal injuries (Nos.1 to
8) and opined the cause of death as "multiple injuries".
There was no cross-examination as the accused remained absent, and the counsel did not turn up. Hence, his testimony remains unshaken and unrebutted. Being an expert opinion and an official
CC.5088/202218
Fair Copy record, his evidence establishes the nature and extent of fatal injuries and supports the prosecution case that the deceased died as a result of severe traumatic injuries caused by vehicular impact.
19) PW19/LW25–Dr.B.Prabhakar
He is the doctor who treated injured Ch. Nandu (LW14). He deposed that the boy was admitted on 26.07.2012 and was found to have a depressed fracture of right parietal bone, which is grievous in nature, and surgery was conducted the same day. He was discharged on 01.08.2012 and he issued medical certificate of Lw14 and the same is marked as Ex.P11.
In cross-examination, he admitted not bringing the case sheet and noted certain clerical errors in Ex.P11 like the age column stating "1" year instead of "7", and an empty doctor’s name field at the top though name and seal were at the bottom. He further admitted that the injuries could also be caused due to a fall on a hard surface. Despite these points, the key evidence of grievous injury is consistent and supported by hospital admission and treatment records. The injury being grievous lends weight to the charge under Section 338 IPC.
20) PW20 / LW28 – L. Ramchander (Motor Vehicle Inspector)
This official witness inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.
AP29V0599, a goods carriage HMV, on 04.08.2012. Ex P12 MVI report was marked through Pw20. He found the following impact damages:
Right-side bumper dented
Right-side headlight assembly damaged
CC.5088/202219
Fair Copy
He categorically deposed that brake system was intact and in his opinion, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. In cross- examination, he conceded that there was a delay of 8 days in inspecting the vehicle and that no notice was served to the owner.
Despite the procedural lapses, his technical inspection and findings support the prosecution in ruling out mechanical failure and pointing towards driver negligence.
21) PW21 / LW13 – M. Pravallika (Eye-Witness and Injured
Victim)
She is one of the key eyewitnesses and an injured child witness.
She stated that on 26.07.2012, while she, PW9, PW10, and PW12 were waiting at Ellandha bus stop to board the Ekashila E-Techno school bus, a lorry bearing No. AP29V0599 came at high speed from Khammam and hit them, causing injuries. She suffered injury to her forehead, while PW12 and PW10 also sustained injuries, and one Uttaraiah died due to chest injury. She identified the vehicle and narrated the sequence of events with clarity.
Despite being a child of 10 years at the time, she withstood cross- examination well. She admitted that she could not identify the driver and denied the defense suggestions that she had not suffered any injury or that she was deposing falsely. Her evidence is credible, spontaneous, and consistent with the medical evidence (Ex.P9), lending strong corroboration to the prosecution narrative regarding how the accident occurred and who were affected.
22) PW22 / LW29 – Investigating Officer
He is the IO who registered the FIR, conducted scene of
CC.5088/202220
Fair Copy offence panchanama, prepared rough sketch, seized the vehicle, recorded statements of witnesses, and referred the deceased for
PME. He received the complaint from PW1 at 12:30 hrs on 26.07.2012 and registered Cr.No.122/2012 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC. His evidence is procedural but crucial in connecting all links of investigation - from scene observation to collection of documentary and medical evidence. Ex.P13 FIR, Ex.P14 medical certificate of
LW10 / Pw7, Ex.P15 is the MC of Lw11/Pw8, Ex.P16 is the MC of
Lw15/ Pw10 were marked through Pw22.
His role in coordinating medical referrals, vehicle seizure, securing eyewitnesses and medical officers shows due diligence and timely response, although the delay in MVI requisition (noted by
PW20) could have been avoided. Nonetheless, he has effectively corroborated all material aspects of the prosecution case.
Observations made by this court:
• Causation of Death by Negligence (Section 304-A IPC):
PW1 (the widow) deposed about the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained from the accident. PW6 provided photographic evidence (Ex.P3) supporting the grievous nature of injuries. Medical evidence (not detailed here but referenced) further corroborates the grievous nature of injuries leading to death.
There is no evidence suggesting any other cause for death, and the
link between the rash driving and death is clearly established.
• Identification of the Vehicle and Driver:
Though some injured witnesses could not identify the driver or the vehicle number due to unconsciousness or trauma, crucial
CC.5088/202221
Fair Copy eyewitnesses (PW2, PW5, PW11, PW12) identified the accused driver and described the vehicle as a lorry loaded with granite.
The presence of the accused at the scene and his connection with the lorry are established beyond doubt, and no credible contradictions in this regard were raised.
• Grievous Hurt and Hurt Caused (Sections 338 and 337 IPC):
Injured witnesses (PW8, PW9, PW10, PW12) testified regarding their injuries caused by the lorry's impact. The nature and extent of injuries (including severe injuries to head, shoulders, legs, eyes, and brain injury) are consistent with the application of Sections 338 and 337 IPC.
Their injuries were caused due to the reckless driving of the lorry, which endangered their lives and safety.
• Rash and Negligent Driving (Sections 279, 183 M.V. Act, 304-A
IPC):
The testimonies of multiple eyewitnesses (PW2, PW3, PW5, PW7,
PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12) consistently and cogently establish that the accused was driving a lorry at an excessive speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The lorry first dashed into a barber shop, then hit the deceased (Uthraiah) and several children waiting at a bus stop.
The uniformity and consistency of the eyewitness accounts, including victims who suffered injuries themselves, confirm the rashness and negligence.
Importantly, the lorry caused multiple injuries and ultimately the death of the deceased due to this rash driving, satisfying the elements of Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and Sections 181, 183 M.V. Act.
CC.5088/202222
Fair Copy • Credibility and Corroboration:
The eyewitnesses’ statements are natural, consistent, and corroborate each other. Attempts to impeach witnesses on minor discrepancies or non-recollection are insufficient to create reasonable doubt. The evidence of post-accident witnesses (PW1, PW4) and medical/photographic evidence (PW6) further solidify the prosecution’s case.
IX.Basing on the above discussion and observations this court finds:
1. Rash and Negligent Driving (Section 279 IPC)
Section 279 IPC mandates that any person who drives a vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or public safety is punishable. In the present case:
• PWs 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12, all gave direct and ocular testimony about the accused driving the lorry at an excessive speed through a crowded village junction.
• PW11 stated the lorry “moved between two parked RTC buses” before it “violently rammed into pedestrians and a barber shop”.
• PW12, a minor child and victim, recalled that the lorry “overtook an auto in a drunken and rash manner” before dashing into people.
• PW20 (MVI) confirmed no mechanical defect was found in the vehicle.
In Bhalchandra v. State of Maharashtra , AIR 1968 SC
1319,theHon’bleSupremeCourtobserved:
“Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of risk and
CC.5088/202223
Fair Copy the knowledge that such act may cause injury but without intention to cause harm.”
In the present case facts cumulatively affirm the conduct of the accused met the legal threshold of “rash and negligent driving” under Section 279 IPC.
2. Causing Death by Negligence (Section 304-A IPC)
The pivotal issue is whether the accused's negligent act was the proximate cause of death of the deceased, Uthraiah.
• PW6 submitted photographs (Ex.P3) showing multiple injuries.
• PW18 (Doctor), who performed the post-mortem, opined that death was due to “multiple external and internal injuries” (Ex.P10).
• No intervening event contributed to the death, linking the accused’s conduct directly to the fatality.
• Witnesses like PW2, PW5, PW10, and PW12 consistently testified that the deceased was hit by the same lorry involved in the saloon crash.
In Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana , AIR 2008 SC 1749, the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that:
“To attract Section 304-A IPC, it must be shown that the death was the direct result of the negligent act of the accused without the intervention of another’s negligence.”
In the present case The chain of causation is intact, unbroken, and clearly points to the death arising due to the rash driving of the accused.
CC.5088/202224
Fair Copy
3. Causing Grievous Hurt and Hurt (Sections 338 & 337 IPC) • PW19 (Doctor) confirmed that PW9 (a child) had a depressed fracture of the parietal bone, qualifying as “grievous hurt” under
Section 320 IPC.
• Ex.P11, the medical certificate, corroborates this.
• Other children and shop occupants—PWs 8, 10, 12, and 21—suffered visible injuries, corroborated by Ex.P8, Ex.P9, and Ex.P16.
• These injuries were directly caused by the same vehicle driven by the accused.
The presence of these injuries and the reckless driving establish beyond doubt the ingredients under Sections 338 and 337 IPC.
4. Driving Without License (Section 181 MV Act) • PW22 (Investigating Officer) deposed that the accused did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the incident.
• The defence did not cross-examine or disprove this fact.
• Driving a heavy motor vehicle without a license is a strict liability offence under the MV Act.
5. Dangerous Driving (Section 183 MV Act) • The accused drove a heavy lorry laden with granite through a village street crowded with children and civilians.
• He lost control, collided with the barber shop, and then ran over schoolchildren.
CC.5088/202225
Fair Copy • This conduct falls within the ambit of "dangerous driving likely to cause injury".
In State of Karnataka v. Satish , (1998) 8 SCC 493, the Hon’ble
Apex court it was held that, “Merely driving at a high speed does not constitute rash or negligent driving. It must be proved that the speed was beyond reasonable limits given the road conditions.”
In the present case, the accused’s vehicle was driven within a village, between buses, and into public gatherings, which are inherently unsafe areas for speed. Hence, the threshold of dangerous driving is crossed.
6. Eyewitness Reliability and Identification
The defence argued that no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and identification in court is insufficient.
However:
• PW2, PW5, and PW12 were categorical that they knew and saw the accused drive the vehicle.
• The Supreme Court has consistently held that TIP is not substantive evidence; what matters is identification in court corroborated by other evidence.
In Malkhan Singh v. State of M.P. , (2003) 5 SCC 746 as
emphasized the Hon’ble Supreme court of India “Failure to conduct TIP does not render the identification in court unreliable, especially if the witness had a chance to see the accused earlier.”
CC.5088/202226
Fair Copy
Here in the case on hand, the accused was the driver of the vehicle known to PW2, PW5, and PW12 witnesses and identified in court without hesitation.
X. Upon careful scrutiny, this court fees the prosecution's evidence forms an unbroken and coherent chain, supported by:
• Direct eyewitnesses • Victim testimonies • Medical certificates and autopsy reports • Motor vehicle inspection reports • Absence of any plausible defence
The minor contradictions in injury locations (e.g., thigh vs. eye injury) are natural discrepancies due to trauma recollection, and do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or the core prosecution case.
The power of direct and corroborated evidence outweighs the absence of a Test Identification Parade or procedural lapses.
XI. Basing on the forgoing discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that:
• The accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner on a public road (Sections 279 IPC, 181 and 183 MV Act).
• Due to such rash and negligent driving, the accused caused the death of Uthraiah (Section 304-A IPC).
The accused caused grievous hurt to other victims (Section 338 IPC) and hurt to several others (Section 337 IPC).
CC.5088/202227
Fair Copy
XII. Further, the prosecution has successfully established all essential ingredients of the charged offences, namely:
• Rash and negligent driving (Sec. 279 IPC) • Causing death by negligence (Sec. 304-A IPC) • Causing grievous and simple injuries (Secs. 338, 337 IPC) • Driving without a license (Sec. 181 MV Act) • Driving dangerously in public space (Sec. 183 MV Act)
All the essential ingredients of the charged offences stand proved through credible and consistent eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and documentary evidence. The defence has failed to raise any significant doubt or contrary evidence to rebut the prosecution case.
XIII. In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the accused is found guilty for the offences 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sec.
181, 183 (ii) of the motor vehicle Act, 1988 , beyond all reasonable doubt”.
XIV. In the result, the accused is found guilty and he is convicted under
section 255 (2) of criminal procedure code for the offences under section
304-A, 338, 337, 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sec. 181, 183 (ii) of MV Act.,
(though this court takes cognizance of offence under section 183 whole
this court only gave conviction under section 183 (ii) of Motor Vehicle
Act., as the accused vehicle is heavy goods vehicle i.e., lorry AP 29 V O599
of MV Act., in accordance with law).
XV. Today, i.e., on the 30 th day of May, 2025, the accused MD.
FAROOQ is present before this Court for pronouncement of sentence,
having been found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 304-
CC.5088/202228
Fair Copy
A, 338, 337, 279 IPC and Sections 181 and 183 (ii) of the Motor Vehicles
Act., 1988, as per the judgment of even date.
XVI. Hearing on the quantum of sentence:
Accused is informed that he is found guilty for the offence under
Sections 304-A, 338, 337, 279 of Indian Penal Code, Sec.181, 183 (ii) of
MV Act., for offence u/s.304 A he is punishable with imprisonment for a term •
that can extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both,
for offence u/s.338 : imprisonment of either description for a term • that may extend to two years, or with a fine that may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, •for the offence u/s.337 : imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to six months, or with a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, •for the offence u/s.279: imprisonment up to six months, a fine of ₹ 1,000, or both, for the offence u/s 181 of MV Act : Punishment includes • imprisonment for up to three months, a fine of up to 5,000, or ₹ both, for the offence u/s 183 (ii) of MV Act : Punishable with fine which • shall not be less than two thousand rupees, but may extend to four thousand rupees
XVII.Heard the accused and prosecution on quantum of sentence. The accused prayed for leniency, submitting that he is the sole breadwinner for
CC.5088/202229
Fair Copy his family, and has no previous criminal record. The learned defence counsel emphasized his young age and sought benefit of probation. The learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that the offence caused the death of an innocent vendor, grievous hurt to school children, and was committed in a grossly negligent and irresponsible manner.
Hence, appropriate punishment is essential for deterrence and public safety.
XVIII. Consideration by the Court:
The Court is mindful of the fact that:
• The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused; • The accused was driving without a valid driving license; • The act resulted in the death of a fruit vendor, grievous injury to children, and caused public panic; • The vehicle involved was a heavy goods lorry being driven through a populated village bus stop area; • The public trust in road safety and enforcement of the Motor Vehicles Act is at stake.
XIX. While the Court takes note of the mitigating plea that the accused has no prior convictions and is remorseful, the gravity of the offence, the number of victims, and the consequences compel the Court to award a sentence that meets the ends of justice, deterrence, and proportionality.
Hence, the accused is not entitled to the benefit of Probation of Offenders
Act., 1958, considering the loss of life, the number of victims, and the nature of reckless conduct.
CC.5088/202230
Fair Copy
XX. Accordingly, this Court sentences the accused MD. Farooq as follows:
1. Under Section 304-A IPC – Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of 9,500/- ₹, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 3 months.
2. Under Section 338 IPC – Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of 900/- ₹, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 2 months.
3. Under Section 337 IPC – Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 months and fine of 400/- ₹, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
4. Under Section 279 IPC – Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and fine of 900/- ₹, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
5. Under Section 181 MV Act – Simple Imprisonment for 2 months and fine of 3,000/- ₹, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
6. Under Section 183 (ii) MV Act – punishable to pay fine of 2,000/- ₹, in default, Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
All the above sentences shall run concurrently and the total fine
amount of Rs.16,700/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand seven hundred only).
(the typographical mistake i.e., 14,900/- instead of 16,700/- was corrected in words as well as figures as per the docket order dated 18.06.2025).The period of detention already undergone by the accused, if any, shall be set off under
Section 428 Cr.P.C. The case property which is given to interim custody to the owner namely Raju Rajil Babu vide orders in Criminal M.P No.1005/2012 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period.
XXI. The accused has informed about his right to appeal and right to free legal aid and the office is directed to serve a copy of this judgment and order be furnished free of cost to the accused immediately.
(Typed on my dictation and after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of May, 2025).
Sd/-
II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.
CC.5088/202231
Fair Copy
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW-1: Ooga Venkat Laxmi - None - PW-2: P.Sammaiah PW-3: S.Uppalaiah PW-4: B. Swamy PW-5: R.Yakaiah PW-6: J.Bixapathi PW-7: P. Sammaiah PW-8: S.Sampath PW-9: Chidirala Harshavardhan @ Nandu PW-10: P.Soumith Reddy PW-11: M. Dudaiah PW-12: M. Pragnya PW-13: T. Kumaraswamy PW-14: S. Yellaiah PW-15: R.Ravi PW-16: Pawar Sunil PW-17: Dr. P. Kali Prasad Rao PW-18: Dr.B.Raju PW-19: Dr.B.Prabhakar PW-20: L. Ramchander PW-21: M.Pravalika PW-22: B.Venkat Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.P-1: Report Ex.D1 is the 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P-2: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P-3: Three Photographs Ex.P-4: Crime details form Ex.P-5: Inquest Panchanama Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C Statement Ex.P-7: 161 Cr.P.C Statement
CC.5088/202232
Fair Copy
Ex.P-8: Medical Certificate of LW12 Ex.P-9: Medical Certificate of LW13 Ex.P-10: PME Report Ex.P-11: Medical certificate Ex.P-12: MVI Report Ex.P-13: FIR Ex.P-14: MC of LW10/PW7 Ex.P-15: MC of LW11/PW8 Ex.P-16: MC of LW15/PW10
MATERIAL OBJECTS
- NIL -
Sd/-
II-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal. //True copy//