C.C.69/20121 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
MADAKASIRA
PRESENT:-Smt G.GEETHA, Judl.Magistrate of First Class Hindupur, FAC. Madakasira THURSDAY, THE 13thDAY OF NOVEMBER, 2014
CALENDAR CASE No.69/2012
Between:
The State Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolla Police Station. . . . Complainant.
AND
Kaki Hajarathagari Saleemulla, aged 23 years, s/o Hajarath Basha, Kaki village, Rolla Mandal, Rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AH-5418. . . . Accused.
This case is coming before me on 13-11-2014 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri.
H.S.Narayana Gowd, Advocate for Accused, having perused material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till today the court made the following:
JUDGMENT
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rolla Police Station, filed the charge sheet in crime No.39/2012 under sections 337, 304 (A) IPC and under section 181 M.V.Act against the accused alleging that :-
2.On 05-07-2012 at 5-00 P.M., T.Vasanth (LW1), deceased and accused left Kaki village for Mandalapalli village on Bajaj motor cycle bearing
No.AP-02-AH 5418 for attending a function and after completion of the same they left Mandalapalli village at 8-30 P.M., then Vasanth and deceased were sat as pillion riders while the accused was riding motor cycle, on the way to
Kaki village. After crossing B.G.Halli gate at about 9-00 P.M., the accused ride the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the speed of the motor cycle. Due to which they all fell down in
C.C.69/20122 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA road side ditch along with the motor cycle, on that Vasanth (LW1) sustained bleeding injuries on his face, his head, legs and hands. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries on his head and the accused also sustained bleeding injuries on his head and the motor cycle also got damaged. Then
Vasanth (LW1) informed about the accident to his mother and others over phone. Later Vasanth (LW1), the deceased and accused were shifted to
Government hospital of Madakasira and Hindupur in 108 ambulance. Then
Vasanth (LW1) and accused were discharged. But due to critical condition of deceased he was shifted to Government hospital, Tumkur, Karnataka State.
Later he succumbed to the injuries on 07-07-2012 at 6-30 P.M.
3.Then on the report of Vasanth (LW1) a case was registered in the above said crime number for the offence under section 337, 304 (A) IPC by
Sub-Inspector of police (LW11). Then he took up investigation, then he also conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased at the scene of offence on 08-07-2012 at Martuary, Government hospital, Tumkur in the presence of blood relatives and mediators. Then sent the dead body for autopsy. Then another Sub-Inspector of police of Rolla police station (LW12) arrested the accused on 23-07-2012. Then he sent the accused to the Court for judicial custody. The Medical Officer (LW8) who conducted the Post Martom over the dead body of the deceased issued Post Martom certificate. The Medical
Officer (LW9) who treated the injured LW1 issued wound certificate by opining that the injuries are simple in nature. The Motor vehicle Inspector (LW10) who inspected the crime vehicle issued certificate by opining that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.
4.After completion of the investigation the Sub-Inspector of police (LW12) filed the charge sheet against the accused.
5.Cognizance of the offence is taken under sections 337, 304(A) of
IPC and under section 181 of M.V.Act against the accused.
C.C.69/20123 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA
6.On appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to him as per section 207 Cr.P.C. and he was examined under section 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the charge sheet allegations for the offence under sections 337, 304(A) of IPC and under section 181 of M.V.Act. But he denied and not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.To prove the prosecution case the prosecution got examined
Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Further the evidence of
M.Kambakka, M.Shekar, M.Manjunath, R.Rangappa and M.Mahaboob Peera (Lws.2, 4, 5, 7 and 12 given up by Assistant Public Prosecutor.
8.After closure of the prosecution side evidence the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appear in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but he denied the same and reported that no any defence evidence on his behalf.
9.Now the point for determination is that, whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under section 337, 304(A) of IPC.
10.Heard on both sides.
11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW2, is sufficient to proceed against the accused. So, request the Court to convict the accused.
12The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is delay of three days in giving the report, so it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Further he argued that there is material discrepancy between evidence of inquest panchayatdar and inquest report. Further he argued that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is silent about rash and negligent act of the driver
C.C.69/20124 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA of the crime vehicle. Further he argued that there is no any evidence from the independent witness to support the case of the prosecution. So, he argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. So, request the Court to acquit the accused.
13.On perusing the charge sheet and evidence on the record the case of the prosecution is that on 05-07-2012 at about 9-00 P.M., while PW1
Vasanth, deceased and accused were returning from Mandalapalli village in a motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AH-5418 after crossing B.G.Halli gate the accused while riding the crime vehicle rode the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle, due to that himself and pillion riders i.e., Vasanth and deceased fell down in the road side ditch along with the motor cycle due to that they sustained injuries in the said accident the deceased died due to head injuries. Then on the complaint of the PW1 Vasanth the present case was registered.
14.So, here in order to prove the case of the prosecution for the offence under sections 337 and 304 (A) IPC. The prosecution has to prove the following things.
I ) The accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle at the time of the accident.
II) He rode the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed at the time of accident and caused the accident.
III) In the present accident the deceased died.
IV) PW1 Vasanth sustained simple injuries in the present accident.
POINT No.I :- The accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle at
the time of the accident ?
15.It is a case of the prosecution the accused was the rider of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident.
C.C.69/20125 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA
16.To prove the same the prosecution examined the alleged defacto-complainant/one of the injured as PW2. He deposed in his evidence about one year back himself, deceased Hanumantharayappa and accused went to Mandalapalli village in one motor cycle to attend a dinner. Later at 9-00 P.M., they left Mandalapalli to go to Kaki village on the same motor byke. By that time the accused was riding the byke and deceased sat in the middle byke and he sat in the last on the byke and when the motor cycle reached near Agrampalli the byke was fell down in the road ditch. Then they fell down and they sustained injuries. But in his evidence he deposed that he did not give any complaint to the police, and the police did not examine him. Further here the prosecution even did not try to mark the signature of
PW1 and Ex.P5 which was marked through the Investigating Officer i.e., PW7.
So, here it is the oral evidence of the PW2, accused was the rider of the crime vehicle by that time of the accident.
17.Further the prosecution examined father of the deceased as
PW1. He deposed that he came to know about the accident while he was in the house. Further he deposed that his son and accused went on motor byke and his son died in the motor cycle accident. But in his evidence he did not depose who was the rider of the motor cycle by the time of the accident.
18.Further the prosecution examined Investigating Officer as PW7.
He deposed in his evidence as per the records prepared by him during the course of the investigation about receiving the complaint, registering the case, conducting the inquest over the dead body of the deceased, examining the witnesses and recording their statements, visiting the scene of offence and preparing the rough sketch. Then he deposed that the Sub-Inspector of police (LW12) arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet against the accused. So, through his evidence it reveals that he is not the person who arrested the accused in this case. Further here the prosecution not filed any
C.C.69/20126 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA piece of record to show that accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle by the time of the accident and also not filed any piece of record in respect of the crime motor cycle. So here on perusing the entire evidence on the record except the self contradictory evidence on PW2 who was injured/one of the person traveled on the crime vehicle by the time of the accident there is no evidence to show that accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle by the time of the accident. So, in the absence of any cosent evidence the evidence of PW2 is not inspired the confidence of the Court to establish that the accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle by the time of the accident. So, the prosecution failed to prove that accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle by the time of the accident.
19. Point No. 2 :- Here the case of the prosecution is that the
accused rode the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
caused the accident.
To prove the same the prosecution examined one of the travellor of the byke and alleged complainant as PW2 i.e., Vasanth. He deposed in his evidence about one year back himself, accused and deceased went to Mandalapalli in one motor cycle to attend a dinner and after completion of the same they started from Mandalapalli to go to Kaki village by the time the accused was the rider of the motor cycle and the deceased sat in the middle of the motor cycle and he sat in the last on the same motor cycle when the motor cycle reached near Agrampalli the byke was fell down in to a road ditch on the left side on that he fell down and sustained injuries on his face and back then Hanumantharayappa sustained injuries and the accused also sustained injuries, and the motor cycle was damaged.
Further he deposed that later himself, deceased Hanumantharayappa and accused were shifted to Rolla in a 108 ambulance from there to Madakasira and Hindupur hospitals. Further he deposed that accused and
Hanumantharayappa went to Tumkur for further treatment and he took treatment in Hindupur only. Further he deposed that the deceased
C.C.69/20127 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA Hanumantharayappa gave report to police and he did not gave any report to the police. Further PW1 Erakatappa turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
20.Further in his cross-examination by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor he deposed that he stated before the police as the accused rode the crime motor cycle at high speed, lost control over the motor cycle and fell down on left side the road ditch. But he deposed that he does not know whether he gave any report to the police or not. So, here on perusing the entire evidence of PW2 it is found that his evidence is self contradictory one.
Moreover he denied about giving the report i.e., Ex.P5 to the police.
21. Here the prosecution failed even marking the signature on Ex.P5 through PW1 if really it belongs to PW2. So, in the absence of admission of signature by PW2 on Ex.P5 mere marking of Ex.P5 through Investigating
Officer i.e., PW7 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution which is bases for registering the FIR i.e., Ex.P6 . So, Ex.P5 is not considered which was marked subject to objection.
22.Further here except the self contradictory evidence of PW2 there is no any evidence from the eye witness about the occurrence as the accused rode the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control and caused the accident. Though the Motor Vehicle
Inspector i.e., PW6 gave his report i.e., Ex.P4 as there are no any mechanical defects in the crime motor vehicle and the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicle.
23.More over here on perusing the evidence of PW1 i.e., father of deceased, Ex.P6 i.e. FIR it is found that the accident was occurred on 05-07- 2012 but the information received by the police is on 07-07-2012. So, there was delay of 2 days in giving the report by PW1 but the reason for the delay mentioned in the FIR is not sufficient reason because in the FIR the reason for the delay mentioned as due to shifting the Hanumantharayappa for treatment from one hospital to one hospital i.e., Madakasira, Hindupur and
Tumkur and after his death they gave report to the police is not a reasonable
C.C.69/20128 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA cause because in the cross-examination of PW1 he clearly deposed that Rolla
Police station is situated opposite to the Government hospital, and three police persons came to Rolla hospital and examined him at Rolla police station on the day of the accident. So, here on the day of the accident itself
PW1 was examined by the Rolla police. Further here in his cross- examination he deposed that after that himself and his sons came to
Madakasira hospital along with his deceased son from there they went to
Hindupur hospital. Further he admitted that they took treatment for two days at Tumkur during the said period. Further he deposed that after the death of his son he telephoned to his relatives from Tumkur then three persons took him to Rolla, obtained their signatures on their statements and filed the same before the Rolla Police. Before that he deposed that himself and Doctor did not file any report before the police till the death of his son and he did not state any reason for the accident either in the government hospital Madakasira or Hindupur or Tumkur. So, here on perusing the entire cross-examination of PW1 the reason for the delay in giving report is mentioned in the FIR is not a genuine and sufficient cause. More over his cross-examination gives dought on the case of the prosecution. So, here the delay in giving the report is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
24.Further the self contradictory evidence of PW2 is not safe enough to establish the rash and negligent act of the rider of the motor cycle. So, here the prosecution failed to establish that the accused rode the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and caused the accident.
25. POINT No. III :-As per the case of the prosecution the deceased died in the present accident, the same was deposed by the father of the deceased who was examined as PW1. The same was deposed by inquest panchayatdar was examined as PW3. Further PW3 in his evidence he deposed that on 08-07-2012 he attended by the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased Hanumantharayappa at Tumkur, hospital. Then
C.C.69/20129 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA he signed on inquest panchanama i.e., Ex.P1.
26.So, here through the evidence of PW1, PW3 it reveals that the deceased died in the present accident. Further through the evidence of
Medical Officer i.e., PW4 the cause of death of deceased is proved by means of Medical evidence i.e., for the reason mentioned in Ex.P2 i.e., Post Mortem report.
27.The prosecutions establish that the deceased died in the present accident.
28. POINT No. IV :- It is the case of prosecution, PW2 sustained injuries in the present accident.
29.For that PW2 i.e., injured deposed that he sustained injuries on his face and back. The evidence of the injured i.e., PW2 was also prove by means of Medical evidence i.e., through the evidence of Doctor who treated the injured i.e., PW5 because PW5 in his evidence deposed about treating
PW2 and issuing wound certificate i.e., Ex.P3 about sustaining injuries by
PW2. So, the prosecution establish that PW2 sustained simple injuries in the present accident.
30.So, as per the entire discussion the prosecution failed to establish that accused was the rider of the crime motor cycle by the time of the accident, he rode the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and caused the accident. Though the prosecution establish that the deceased died in the accident and PW2 sustained simple injuries in the present accident. So, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under sections 337, 304 (A)
IPC.
C.C.69/201210 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA
31.Hence In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 337, 304(A) IPC. Hence the accused is acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. The un-marked motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AH- 5418 which was given to K.Hazarath gari Allemulla s/o H.Hazarath towards interim custody as per the orders in Cr.M.P. No.1179/2012 dated 05-11-2012 is holds good after appeal time is over. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after appeal is over.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of November, 2014.
JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
HINDUPUR, (FAC) MADAKASIRA.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE
PW1 - Kadirappa None PW2 - Vasantha PW3 - K.L.Raju, Press Reporter. PW4 - Dr.S.Rudramurthy, Resident Medical Officer. PW5 - Dr.K.R.Sathish Kumar, Civil Asst. Surgeon. PW6 - G.V.Madhava Reddy, M.V.Inspector. PW7 - K.Maddileti, S.I. of police.
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 - Inquest panchanama dt.08-07-2012 None Ex.P2 - Post Mortem report Ex.P3 - Wound certificate of PW2 Ex.P4 - Accident report Ex.P5 - Complaint of PW2 Ex.P6 - FIR Ex.P7 - Inquest panchanama Ex.P8 - Seizure mahazarnama Ex.P9 - Rough sketch Ex.P10 – Requisition.
Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Hindupur, (FAC) Madakasira.
C.C.69/201211 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA
IN THE COURT OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MADAKASIRA
CALENDER CASE NO.69/2012
1. Date of offence : 05-07-2012
2. Date of complaint or report: 07-07-2012
3. Date of apprehension of Accused : 23-07-2012
3. Date of release on bail of Accused : 23-07-2012
4. Date of commencement of trial: 08-04-2013
5. Date of close of trial: 11-07-2014
6. Date of sentence or Order: 13-11-2014
7. Explanation of delay if any: --
COMPLAINANT:
State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police Rolla, Police Station in Crime No.39/2012.
ACCUSED: Kaki Hajarathagari Saleemulla, aged 23 years, s/o Hajarath Basha, Kaki village, Rolla Mandal, Rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AH-5418.
Offence : Causing hurt by an act which endangers human life etc. and Causing death by rash and negligent act.
Section of Law : U/Secs. of IPC. 337, 304(A)
Finding of Court : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 337, 304(A) IPC. Hence the accused is acquitted for the same under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled after appeal time is over. The un-marked motor cycle bearing No.AP-02-AH- 5418 which was given to K.Hazarath gari Allemulla s/o H.Hazarath towards
C.C.69/201212 JFCM COURT, MADAKASIRA interim custody as per the orders in Cr.M.P. No.1179/2012 dated 05-11-2012 is holds good after appeal time is over. The unmarked non valuable property if any shall be destroyed after appeal is over.
Sentence/Order: 13-11-2014.
Judl.Magistrate of First Class Hindupur, (FAC) Madakasira.
Copy submitted to the Hon’ble II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hindupur.