1
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AT HYDERABAD.
PRESENT: SMT. P.V.P. Lalitha Siva Jyoti, B.Sc., M.L.,
XII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERABAD.
DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY of JUNE , 2012
C.C.NO. 41 of 2012
Between:
The Sub Inspector of Police, Nampally Police Station
Hyderabad. .. Complainant.
And
E. Yadagiri S/o E. Sathaiah, Aged 41 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Dammaiguda Village,
Keesara Mandal, Rfanga Reddy Dist. .. Accused
This case is coming on for final hearing before me, in the presence of
Lr. Sr. A.P.P. for Prosecution and Sri. Vidya Sagar, Counsel for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Inspector of Police , Police station Nampally Hyderabad filed
Charge sheet in Cr.No.102/11 Under section 304A and 337 IPC against the
accused.
2 The case of the prosecution against the accused in brief is that on 145
2011 at 7.20 P.M LW1 J. Krishna Chaitanya along with one Appala Raju left
from Masab Tank for Basheerbagh for on his m otor cycle driven by Appala Raju
and at about 6.30 P.M when they reached near Ganga Jamuna Hotel the driver of
the APSRTC Bus bearing no. AP 11 Z 1995 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and hit their bike and due to that they fell down and the bus
passed over the head of the said Appala Raju and that he died no the spot and
on that he gave report to the police and LW5 Y. Raghunath registered a case in
Cr.No. 102/2011 U/s 304 A and 337 IPC and issued FIR and prior to FIR and
received information about the accident and LW15 M. Kishtaiah , SI of Police
2
rushed to the spot and taken photographs at the scene of offence and shifted
the body to Osmania General Hospital and crime vehicle to Nampally PS to clear
the traffic and during the course of investigation he had examined and recorded
the statements of LW1 to 4 i.e J. Krishna Chaitanya, Smt K. Rani, K. Srinivas and
Smt K. Padma and visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW5
and LW6 i.e Y. Raghunath and M. Rajender and conducted scene of offence
observation panchanama and later referred the injured/LW1 J. Krishna Chaitanya
to Osmania General Hospital and on 1552011 he visited the Osmania General
Hospital Mortuary and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the
presence of LW7 and LW8 i.e K. Nageshwar Rao and K.V. Subba Rao and referred
the dead body for PM Examination report and on 1652011 at 10.00 A.M the
accused surrendered in PS and voluntarily confessed the commission of offence
and verified the documents and arrested him and forwarded him to the court and
gave requisition to LW9 T. Venkateshwar Rao to inspect the crime vehicle and
after completion of investigation file the charge sheet.
3. This case taken on cognizance for the offence punishable Under section 304 (A) IPC and 337 IPC against the accused.
4 On appearance of accused, he was furnished with the copies of
documents as required U/s 207 Cr.P.C.
5 The accused was examined U/s 251 Cr.P.C. and the accusation made
against him U/sec.304A IPC has been read over and explained to him in his
vernacular language for which he denied pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6 The prosecution in support of its case got examined PWs 1 to 9 and got
marked Ex's P1 to P7 .
7 After the closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/s
313 CR.P.C. And on the incriminating material appearing against him which he
denied and reported no evidence on his behalf 8 Heard arguments on both sides.
9 Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution had made out
the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304A IPC and 337 IPC
beyond all reasonable doubt ?
3
10 To establish the offence U/sec 304A and 337 IPC the prosecution has to
prove that on 1452011 at about 6.30 P.M the accused being the driver of the
crime APSRTC bus bearing no. AP 11 Z 1995 drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the motor bike of the deceased and on that he fell down
and the crime bus ran opver the head of the Appala Raju and thereby caused the
death of the deceased on the spot and simple injuries to PW1 beyond all
reasonable doubt.
11. The case of the prosecution is that on 1452011 PW1 and the deceased
Appala Raju attended the marriage works at the residence situated at Masab
Tank and at about 6.00 P.M PW1 and the said Appala Raju proceeded on their bike
to their residence to change their dress and the bike was driven by Appala Raju
and when they reached Lakdikapool at Ganga Jamuna Hotel at that time the
driver of the RTC bus bearing no AP 11 Z 1995 came from back side and hit their
motor bike and on that the said Appala Raju fell down on the right side of the
road and the bus ran over him and he died on the spot and on that PW1 gave Ex
P1 report to the police and registered a case in Cr.No. 102/2011 for the offences
U/s 304 A and 337 IPC and issued FIR to all the concerned and he had examined
and recorded the statement of PW1 in their PS and prior to the issuance of FIR
and receiving the information about the accident near Ayodhya Hotel he visited
the scene of offence and they had taken photographs of the scene of offence and
shifted the dead body of the deceased to mortuary Osmania General Hospital,
Hyderabad and also shifted the crime vehicle to Nampally PS to clear the traffic
and intimated the same to PW1 to PW3 and LW4 K. Padma about the accident
and immediately they came to PS and after issuance of FIR they had examined
and recorded the statement of PW1 to PW3 and LW4 K. Padma and later they
visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the
presence of PW4 and LW6 M. Rajender. On 1552011 they visited the Osmania
General Hospital mortuary and secured the presence of PW5 and LW8 K.V.
Subba Rao and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and later they
referred the dead body of the deceased for PME report and subsequently on 165
2011 the accused surrendered in their PS and voluntarily confessed the offence
and arrested him and forwarded him to the court LW14 T. Ch Babu , SI of Police
gave requisition to MVI i.e PW6 to inspect the crime vehicle and gave report and 4 after completion of investigation and after collecting all the documents he filed charge sheet into the court.
12 To establish the offences U/sec.304A IPC and 337 IPC the prosecution
all together got examined nine witnesses out of fifteen listed witnesses and got marked EX P1 to Ex P7 .
Ex P1: is the report of PW1 dt 1452011 Ex P2 : are the nine photographs Ex P3: Scene observation panchanama dt 1452011 Ex P4: is the rough sketch dt 1452011 EX P5: is the inquest panchanama dt 1552011 Ex P6: is the wound certificate dt 1452011 Ex P7: is the PME report
13. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the accused.
14. To establish the offence Under Section 304 A IPC and 337 IPC the
prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW 's 1 to 9 . PW's 1 is the
defacto complainant and injured. PW2 is the wife, PW3 is the brother of the
deceased Appala Raju. PW7 and PW8 are the Medical Officers. PW4 is the panch
witness to the scene of offence panchanama. PW5 is the panch witness for
inquest. PW6 is the MVI . PW9. is the Investigating Officer.
15. In run over cases it is for the prosecution to establish the identity and rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of
the incident. In EX P1 complaint given by PW1 it is mentioned that on 1452011
at about 6.20 P.M PW1 along with deceased Appala Raju left to Masab Tank for
Basheerbagh on his motor cycle and PW1 sat as a pillion rider and the deceased
is the rider of the said motor bike and at about 6.30 P.M they reached opposite to
Ganga Jamuna Hotel and at that time the driver of the crime bus APSRTC bearing
no. AP 11 Z 1995 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit their
bike and the said Appala Raju fell down on the side of the road and the crime bus
passed over the head of Appala Raju and he died no the spot and PW1 sustained
injuries on his right elbow and blunt injury on abdomen and pelvis . But in EX P1
complaint there is no mention about the name or the identity particulars of the
driver of the crime vehicle and it is not even mentioned that he can identify the driver of the crime RTC bus if shown to him.
16. PW1 in his evidence stated that due to shock he did not observe the
driver of the RTC bus. He stated that on 1452011 he along with the deceased
Appala Raju proceeded on a Hero Honda Passion bike to their residence and the
5
said bike was driven by Appala Raju and when they reached Lakdikapool at
Ganga Jamuna Hotel at that time one RTC bus bearing no. AP 11 Z 1995 came
from back side and hit their motor bike and the said Appala Raju fell down on the right side of the road and the bus ran over him and he died on the spot. But his evidence does not reveal that this accused was the driver of the RTC bus bearing no. AP 11 Z 1995 and there was rash and negligent act on his part in causing the
death of the deceased Appala Raju and simple injuries to PW1 . He admitted that
the scene of offence is a busy locality and he stated that they handed over the
motor bike to their proprietor to PS Nampally but he does not know where it was
inspected by Motor Vehicle Inspector.
17. PW2 and PW3 are the wife and brother of the deceased Appala Raju and
their evidence reveals that on 1452011 in the night hours they came to know
that the deceased met with an accident near Masab Tank and died on the spot.
PW4 is the panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama and he stated that
on 1452011 police called him along with Rajender to the accident spot on road
near Masab Tank and there they found stains and saw the bus near the said road
and the police conducted scene observation panchanama and they signed on
EX P3 and the police also drawn Ex P4 rough sketch at the scene of offence. But
nothing is elicited in the evidence of PW4 about the number of the crime
vehicle. PW5 is the inquest panch and his evidence reveals that on 1552011
police called him along with Subba Rao to Osmania General Hospital and
conducted inquest i.e Ex P5 over the dead body of the deceased Appala Raju in
their presence and they opined that the deceased died due to injuries received in the accident. PW6 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the alleged crime
vehicle bearing no. AP 11 Z 1995 and he opined that the accident was not
occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and he issued Ex P6
report. PW7 is the Medical Officer who had examined PW1 on 1452011 and he
stated that he found abrasion on right forearm and he opined that the injuries are
simple in nature. Ex P6 is the wound certificate issued by him. PW8 is the
Medical Officer who held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Appala Rao
and he opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to crush
injury of the head and blunt injury to abdomen and pelvis.
6
18. PW9 is the Investigating Officer. The evidence of PW9/Investigating Officer
reveals that he visited the scene of offence prior to Ex P1 complaint and also
after receipt of Ex P 1 complaint he stated that he had no idea of the time of the
alleged incident and admitted that the scene of offence is a busy locality and
they had seen only the crime vehicle for inspection but they have not sent the
vehicle of the deceased for inspection. He stated that PW1 is the pillion rider of
the crime vehicle. His evidence reveals that he had not examined any local
witnesses at the scene of offence and not produced the crime vehicle or the
vehicle of the deceased before the court and he had not filed the trip sheet of the crime vehicle into the court.
19. The evidence of Investigating Officer reveals that he did not seize any
document relating to the crime vehicle to establish the nexus between the
accused and the crime vehicle and he did not even examine the conductor or
passengers who were present in the crime vehicle at the time of the alleged
incident, for the reasons best known to him. The nonexamination of the eye
witnesses to the incident by the Investigating Office is certainly fatal to the case of the prosecution and failure on the part of the Investigating Officer with regard
to seizure of document of the crime vehicle is also fatal to the case of
prosecution. Admittedly none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution
identified that the accused was the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing no. AP 11
Z 1995 and that he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
from back side of the deceased and thereby caused the death of the deceased
Appala Raju and simple injuries to PW1 . Without there being any cogent,
corroborative evidence on record it is highly improbable and unsafe to give
conviction to the accused simply because it is mentioned in EX P1 report that the
crime vehicle bearing no. AP 11 Z 1995 and PW2 stated the same in his
evidence. The evidence of PW1 itself discloses that he did not observe the driver of the RTC and shows that the has not even seen the driver of the crime vehicle.
20. The evidence of panch witness to the inquest and scene of offence
panchanama and MV Inspector and Medical Officers is not helpful to the case of
prosecution as the evidence of the material witnesses examined by the
prosecution did not disclose anything about the alleged commission of the
offence under section 304 A IPC and 337 IPC by the accused. There is no cogent
7
evidence on record to show that the crime vehicle is APSRTC bus bearing no.
AP 11 Z 1995.
21. For the reasons set forth in the preceeding paras, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the offence Under sec.304A and
337 IPC against the accused that the crime bus is APSRTCbearing no. AP 11 Z
1995 and that the accused was the driver of the crime bus and that there was
rash and negligent act on his part in causing the death of the deceased Appala
Raju and simple injuries to PW1 beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore
benefit of doubt can be given to the accused.
22 IN THE RESULT, I find that the accused is not guilty for the offence
punishable U/s 304A and 337 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted as per the
provisions of U/sec 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand
canceled.
Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of June, 2012 .
XII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.1 Chaitanya Nil P.W.2 K. Mani P.W.3 K. Srinivas P.W.4 Y. Ranganath P.W.5 K. Nageshwar Rao P.W.6 T. Venkateshwar Rao P.W.7 B. Chandra Hassini P.W.8 Dr M. Sugatha P.W.9 M. Kistaiah
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
Ex P1: is the report of PW1 dt 1452011 Ex P2 : are the nine photographs Ex P3: Scene observation panchanama dt 1452011 Ex P4: is the rough sketch dt 1452011 EX P5: is the inquest panchanama dt 1552011 Ex P6: is the wound certificate dt 1452011 Ex P7: is the PME report MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil
XII ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
HYDERABAD.