1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :
SPECIAL MOBILE COURT : AT SANGAREDDY
Tuesday, the 27th day of June, 2017
Present: Smt. Ch. Ashalatha,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Calendar Case No. 1084 of 2016
Between:
The State of Telangana., through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Patancheru.
… Complainant
And
Puthan Singh, S/o Babu Singh, Age: 30 years., Caste: Rajputh, R/o Banihar,Post: Gurdhapa, PS: Hargaon District, Sithapur of Uttar Pradesh. … Accused
This case is coming before me on 27.06.2017 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri V. Mahesh, Advocate for the accused; upon hearing both sides and perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Patancheru Police Station laid a charge sheet against accused in Crime No.187 of 2016 for the offence punishable under
Sections 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
2.The case of the prosecution as alleged in the charge sheet, in brief, is : that the deceased Goundla Suresh Goud and the complaint are relatives and are working in the same company i.e., Sujana Steel company situated in the IDA Bollaram. The complainant gave complaint stating that on 01.05.2016 morning hours, the deceased and the complaint were while proceeding on their separate bikes to attend their relatives marriage, on the way, at about 07.00 am, while the deceased was crossing the NH-65 road at Ganeshgadda Rudraram village Limits towards Ismailkhapet side, in the meantime the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 29 TA 1867 drove his lorry while proceeding towards Patancheru side from Sangareddy dashed the deceased' s
Suresh Goud bike bearing No. AP 23 AM 5807 resulting which the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the above complaint, the Sub Inspector of
Police/LW-11 S. Prabhakar registered a case in Cr. No. 187/2016 for the offence under 2 of 8 sections 304-A of IPC and entrusted investigation to LW12/V. Yadagiri. During the course of investigation LW-12, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statements of witnesses, rushed to the scene of offence i.e.,Ganesh Gadda of
Rudhraram village, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch by securing the presence of two mediators; inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased at the govt. Hospital Patancheru, later autopsy was conducted.
The accused was arrested and was sent to judicial custody. The M.V. Inspector who inspected the crime vehicle gave his report. After receipt of P.M. Certificate and completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. Therefore, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.304 (A) of IPC.
3.On appearance of the accused before the Court, he was supplied with copies of documents as required under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When he was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the allegations made in the charge sheet, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, has examined
PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
5.After closure of prosecution evidence, when the accused is examined under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same. He, however, did not choose to adduce any evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the learned A.P.P. and the counsel for the accused.
7.Now the point that arises for determination is, whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, with which he is charged, beyond reasonable doubt?
3 of 8
8.The case of the accused is total denial. The learned defence counsel would contend that the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident and that the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner due to which the incident occurred and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.
9.The case of the prosecution is that while the deceased was crossing the road on his bike the incident occurred. The said aspect itself indicates that the incident was owing not purely to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle. There also indicates a possibility for the deceased to come across the road while crossing the same suddenly or without taking required precautions which are to be taken while crossing a high way road. Such circumstance is one that tends to mitigate the probability of the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.
10.To prove it's case, the prosecution has examined LW1 Subash Goud as PW1 who deposed that the deceased is his brother by courtesy and that he was following the deceased on another bike and that he witnessed the accident at Ismailkhanpet that a lorry came and hit the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and that the lorry driver stopped the lorry and fled away and that he gave report to the police, which is marked as Ex.P1 and that he cannot identify the accused and that police examined him.
11.Further the prosecution has examined the LW3 Anitha as PW2 and LW-4
Sunandha as PW-3, who deposed that they received information from police that accident took place at Ismailkhanpet while the deceased is going on his bike, a lorry came and hit him in a rash and negligent manner and that they cannot identify the accused and that police examined them.
12.Further the prosecution has examined LW-5, Krishna Goud as PW-4 who deposed that the deceased is his son and that he received information from the police that accident took place at Ismailkhanpet while his son is going on bike bearing No.
4 of 8 5807, a lorry came and hit him in a rash and negligent manner causing death on spot and that he cannot identify the accused and that police examined him.
13.Further the prosecution has examined LW-7, T. Ravi Kumar as PW-5 who deposed that the Police conducted scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and inquest panchanama with regard to accident and he attested the same. PW5 exhibited scene of offence panchanama as Ex.P2, Rough sketch as Ex.P3 and the Inquest panchanama as Ex.P4.
14.Further the prosecution has examined LW-8, Janardhan Goud as PW-6 who deposed that the Police conducted scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and inquest panchanama and that he attested the documents under Exs.P2 to P4.
15. Further the prosecution has examined LW-2, Srisailam as PW-7 who deposed that he witnessed the accident at Ismailkhanpet Chowrastha while a lorry was going to
Patancheru hit the bike causing death of the rider of the bike and that he cannot identify the accused and that he cannot say the crime vehicle number and that Police examined him.
16. Further the prosecution has examined LW-6, Kailash Singh as PW-8 who deposed that he received information that accident took place at Ismailkhanpet and that he does not know subsequent events. He was also cross examined by learned
A.P.P., U/Sec.154 of Indian Evidence Act. During such cross examination the learned
APP failed to elicit anything from PW8 except marking his Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement as Ex.P5. The testimony of PW.8 is very much relevant to establish the fact that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident, but he did not support the case of the prosecution in that regard. As such there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident.
5 of 8
17.Further prosecution has examined the Sub-Inspector of Police, Patancheru (LW- 12) V. Yadagiri as PW-9 who deposed that on 01.05.2016 he received complaint from PW1 and registered a case in Cr. No. 187/2016 for the offence under section 304-
A of IPC and issued FIR and that he examined the list of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama also drawn rough sketch; got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the hospital, sent the vehicle to MV Inspection, gave requisition to the doctor for autopsy, arrested the accused and released him on bail and after collecting all relevant documents, he filed charge sheet.
PW9 exhibited Ex. P6, First Information Report; Ex. P7, Post Mortem Examination; and Ex. P8, Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report.
18.Further the prosecution has examined LW-8 K. Dr. Giri as PW-10 who deposed that he conducted autopsy over the dead body of G. Suresh goud on 01.05.2016 and found multiple injuries and that the cause of death is only multiple injuries which leads to hemorrhage shock and that he issued Post Mortem Report under Ex. P7.
19.On considering the entire evidence on record, it is wholly for the prosecution to prove that the accused was riding the crime lorry at the time of accident and the said accident occurred only because of his rash and negligent driving of the said crime lorry. The Pws.1, 7 and 8 did not depose that they have seen the accused was driving the crime vehicle at the time of the incident and that there is no record to establish that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident.The evidence of Pws.2 to 4 cannot be made as basis to come to a conclusion that the said accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the crime lorry by the accused, as they deposed that they on coming to know about the accident went to the scene of offence.
20.The Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report is marked as Ex.P.8 through PW.9,
Investigating officer. In the said report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector (LW.10) has opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime motor cycle. But, as seen from the said report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the 6 of 8 crime motor vehicle on 04-05-2016 i.e., after three days of the occurrence of the accident and that too at the premises of police station, Patancheru. Therefore, the possibility of rectifying mechanical defects, if any, in the said vehicle and while shifting the same to the police station from the place of accident cannot be ruled out. This suspicious circumstance would make the opinion given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle insignificant.
21.PW.1 even though witnessed the accident did not depose that he has seen the driver of the crime lorry and that he can identify the accused. Thus, PW1's evidence is only useful to the effect of his giving report under Ex.P.1 to the police about the accident. The Pws.2 to 4 are close relatives of the deceased and they deposed what they came to know about the accident. The PW.5 speaks about his acting as a panch at the time of conducting Ex.P2 Scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.P3 rough sketch at the place of accident and Ex.P4 Inquest Panchanama. The PW6 corroborates with the evidence of PW5. The PW8 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW.9 is Sub-Inspector of Police who speaks about his role of investigation in the matter. In Ex.P1 report which was registered in Ex.P6 F.I.R., nothing was elicited/mentioned as to who was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident. When the F.I.R. is silent about the particulars of the culprits it is expected that the investigating agency would conduct Test Identification Parade to fix up the identity of culprits but the investigating agency did not so. Therefore, this court considers, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the incident. There is no other evidence on record to say that the accused was riding the crime lorry at the time of occurrence of the accident and he is responsible for the accident occurred. Basing on the evidence on record, the learned APP has given up the evidence of Lws.10/MV Inspector and LW11/Inspector of
Police who issued FIR. Even if they are examined, there would not have been any improvement in the case of the prosecution.As already noticed above, there is no evidence on record to incriminate the accused with the present case that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and he is responsible for the 7 of 8 accident occurred and therefore the accused committed the offence U/Sec.304-A IPC.
Point is answered against the prosecution.
IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code with which he is charged, and he is accordingly acquitted of the said offence, under Section 255(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. His bail bonds shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.
- Typed to my dictation by the personal assistant, corrected by me in computer and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27th day of June, 2017.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy.
:: Appendix of Evidence ::
(Witnesses Examined)
For Prosecution:
PW-1: Subhash Goud
PW-2: Anitha
PW-3: Sunandha
PW-4: Krishna goud
PW-5. T. Ravi Kumar
PW-6: Janardhan goud
PW-7: Srisailam
PW-8: Kailash singh
PW-9: V. Yadagiri SI of Police / Investigating Officer.
PW-:10 Dr. Giri
For Defence : None.
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P-1: Report
Ex.P-2: Scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P-3: Rough Sketch
Ex.P-4: Inquest panchanama 8 of 8
Ex.P-5: 161 Cr. PC statement of PW8
Ex.P-6: First Information Report
Ex.P-7: Post Mortem Examination
Ex.P-8: Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report
For Defence: NIL.
Material Objects Marked
-NIL-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy.