1
CC No. 411/2013
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM
ADDITIONAL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT BHONGIR.
PRESENT: Smt.G. KAVITHA,
Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir.
(Dated, this the 26th day of March, 2025)
C.C.No. 411 of 2013
Between: The State of Telangana through, S.H.O., P.S. Bhongir Town. …Prosecution. A N D Pasupula Suresh Kumar, S/o.Nagaiah, Age: 25 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Driver of Tavera Car No. AP 29 V 9490, R/o.H.No.9-A/698, RK Nagar, Tatti Annaram, Hayath Nagar, RR District.
...Accused.
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Prosecution and Sri M.Satya Narayana, learned counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record and after hearing both sides this court made the following:
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town, filed a charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.60/2013 for the offence punishable Under
Section 304-A, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 16.08.2013 at 08.00 hours, the informant/Avanaganti Mangamma lodged a report stating that on 15.02.2013 night her husband Avanaganti Satyanarayana, Maripalli
Kistaiah, Vadlakonda Balamma, Rudraram Rupa, Maisolla Vallaiah,
Rudradam Ravi and others were going to Annampatla Village of Bibinagar
Mandal for attending marriage function of one Avanakanti Anil Kumar at 2CC. No.411/2013
Annampatla Village, in the Auto bearing No.AP 23 U 7214 and started from their village at 6.30 p.m., On the way after passing the Singannagudem on
Bhongir bypass, one Cheverlet Thaver vehicle No.AP 29 V 9490 which was coming behind their Auto, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Auto Rikshaw proceeding towards Hyderabad.
As a result, her husband sustained fracture to legs and injuries to head and died at the spot and other occupants of Auto also sustained injuries to their legs, hands. Their relatives who were coming behind them, shifted the injured persons to the hospital and the dead body of her husband is kept in the mortuary. Hence, she requested to take action against the Accused.
Basing on the same, LW-19/Abdul Razzak, Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir
Town, registered a case in Crime No.60/2013 for the offence Under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation.
3.During the course of investigation, LW-19/Abdul Razzak, Sub-
Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town, examined and recorded the statement of informant/LW-1, visited the Government Hospital, Bhongir and found the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary, visited the place of offence situated near Singonnagudem on NH 163 bypass road, and found the accused vehicle Tavera No.AP 29 V 9490 and Auto Rikshaw bearing
No.AP 23 U 7214 at the scene and conducted panchanama of the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses LW-11 and LW12, again visited the hospital, examined and recorded the statements of injured persons LW- 2 to LW-9, held inquest over the dead body in the presence of LW-11 and 3CC. No.411/2013
LW-12 and subjected the dead body for the PME. After the PME, the dead body was handed over to the complainant for last rites. On 28.02.2013 at 12.00 hours, LW-10 visited the police station and surrendered the accused
before LW-18. The accused admitted his guilt. Since, the Investigating
Officer/LW-19, was on bando bust duty and out of the police station limits,
LW-18 /V.Swamy, Sub-Inspector of police, Bhongir Town PS., took up the investigation of the case, effected the arrest of accused by explaining him the grounds of his arrest and effected his arrest duly issuing arrest memo and produced him before the court for judicial remand. Then he examined and recorded the statement of LW-10, who surrendered the accused in the
PS. Later, the Investigating Officer, LW-19/Abdul Razzak, Sub-Inspector of
Police, Bhongir Town, returned to the PS and took up the investigation and recorded the statements of injured persons LW-11/Taduri Rajeswari and LW- 12/Rasamalla Yadagiri @ Yadaiah, who are not examined on the day of the incident and incorporated their statements. Therefore, he also collected the PME and wound certificates. LW-15/Dr.K.Madhu, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Avanaganti Satyanarayana, has opined that the deceased died due to “hypovolemic shock, due to head injury and poly trauma and blunt injury abdomen”. LW-16/Dr.Sri
Ranjith Kumar, who examined the injured persons, has issued medical certificates and opined that the injured persons LW-4 and LW-7 sustained
Grievous Injuries and remaining injured persons LW-2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 sustained simple injuries. Thereafter, he collected the report from the 4CC. No.411/2013
MVI Bhongir who inspected the crime vehicle. The LW-17/MVI opined that in his opinion, the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of above vehicle. Subsequently, after completion of investigation,
LW-18/V.Swamy, Sub-inspector of Police, Bhongir Town PS., filed charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
4.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 304-A, 337, and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
5.On appearance of Accused, the documents were furnished to him as required Under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6.The Accused was examined, Under section 239 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. Charge is framed for the offence punishable Under Section 304A, 338, 337 of IPC., explained to him, in his own language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.13 and got marked Ex.P1 to P28. In this case, the Lr. APP has given-up the evidence of LW14 and LW19. The evidence of LW10 is closed as prosecution failed to produce LW10, even after taking considerable adjournments. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Accused.
8.After closure of the evidence for the prosecution, the Accused was examined Under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining all the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of the 5CC. No.411/2013 prosecution-witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.
9.Heard both sides. Perused the record.
10. Now the point for determination that arose is:
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337, 338 of
Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt ?
11. POINT : To prove the said offences against the accused, the prosecution is required to prove that deceased along with injured persons LW-2 to LW-9,
LW-11, LW-12 were going to marriage at Annampatla Village of Bibinagar
Mandal in Auto Rikshaw which was being driven by LW-6 on 15.02.2013.
On the way after passing Singannagudem of Bhongir by pass the driver of said Auto Rikshaw/LW-6 found vehicle checking at teachers colony and returned Auto towards back, at that time the accused being driver of
Thavera vehicle drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner and hit Auto
Rikshaw, as a result the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot and the remaining occupants LW-2 to LW-9, LW-11 and LW-12 sustained injuries. Thereby, accused committed offences punishable under section 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt.
12.To prove the said offences against the accused, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P28.
13.PW-1/Avanaganti Mangamma is the informant, PW-2/Gajaraju
Buchamma is the injured, PW-3/Vadlakonda Balamma is the injured, PW-4/ 6CC. No.411/2013
M.Kistaiah is the Injured, PW-5/Rudraram Roopa is the Injured,
PW-6/Rudraram Ravi is the Injured, PW-7/Amanaganti Uppalaiah is the
Injured, PW-08/Taduri Rajeswari is the Injured, PW-09/Bojja Venkatesh is the panch for scene and Inquest, PW-10/Dr.K.Madhu Kumar is the
Conducted PME, PW-11/Naresh Sangem is the Inspected the crime vehicle,
PW-12/Dr.Ranjith Kumar is the issued Medical Certificates, PW-13/V.Swamy is the Arrested the Accused. Ex.P1 is the report, Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P3 is the rough sketch, Ex.P4 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P5 is the requisition, Ex.P6 is the PME report, Ex.P7 is the
MVI report, Ex.P8 to Ex.P17 are requisitions of SHO Bhongir Town, Ex.P18 to Ex.P27 are wound certificates of injured persons, Ex.P28 is the FIR.
14. PW-2/Gajaraju Buchamma, the injured has deposed that PW1 is her sister-in-law. LW3 is her brother-in-law. LW4 is her sister. LW7 is her maternal uncle who died one month back. She does not know LW5 and
LW6. She knows LW8 and LW9. She does not know accused. Deceased
Sathyanarayana is her younger brother. She further stated that about 12 years back on one day she, her brother/A. Sathyanaryana along with their relatives LW4, LW7, LW8, LW9 were proceeding in one auto from Raigiri to
Annampatla for attending marriage function of their relative Anil Kumar when they reached By-pass road at that time the driver of one car which was proceeding to Bhongir, drove the vehicle and hit the Auto due to which her brother Sathyanarayana fell down and the car went on him due to which her brother Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot.
7CC. No.411/2013
She further stated that she sustained injuries on her back and LW4 sustained injuries on her bother legs and others who were in auto also sustained injuries. Police examined her and recorded her statement. She further stated that she can identify the driver of the crime vehicle if she sees him. She identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident who is present in the court hall.
15.During the cross-examination, PW-02 stated that she can identify the driver of Auto in which they were traveling on the day of incident. She further stated that she has not stated to the police that she can identify the accused if she sees him. She further stated that she has seen accused for the first time on that day in the court hall. She further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle was present at the scene when police examined her.
16.PW-3/Vadlakonda Balamma, the injured has deposed that PW1 is her sister-in-law. PW2 is her sister. LW3 is her brother-in-law. LW5 to LW9 are her relatives. She does not know accused prior to the incident. Deceased
Sathyanarayana is her younger brother. She further further stated that about 12 years back on one day she, her brother A. Sathyanaryana along with their relatives LW9, LW8, PW2 and others were proceeding in one auto from Raigiri to Annampatla for attending marriage function of their relative
Anil when they reached Yellamma Temple, Bhongir near check post at that time the driver of one sumo, drove the vehicle and hit the Auto due to which her brother Sathyanarayana fell down and the sumo went on him 8CC. No.411/2013 due to which her brother Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot. Her both legs were fractured. She further stated that PW2 sustained injuries on her back and others who were in auto also sustained injuries. She further stated that police might have examined her and recorded her statement. She can identify the driver of the crime vehicle if she sees him. She further stated that she identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident who is present in the court hall.
17.During the cross-examination, PW-03 stated that she does not know what police recorded. She further stated that after the accident she became unconscious as such she does not know who came after the accident. She further stated that she has not seen the driver of said sumo at the time of incident.
18.PW-4/M.Kistaiah, the Injured has deposed that PW1 is his sister. PW2 is his sister-in-law. PW3 is his sister-in-law. LW5 is his daughter LW6 is his son-in-law. She knows LW7 who died. LW8 is his uncle. LW9 is his wife. He knows LW10 to LW12. LW12 died. He does not know accused. Deceased
Sathyanarayana is his brother-in-law. He further stated that about 10 years back on one day he, his brother-in-law A. Sathyanaryana along with their relatives PW2, PW3, LW5, LW6, LW9 and others were proceeding in one auto from Raigiri to one village for attending marriage function of their relative Anil, when they reached Bypass near Singannagudem, Bhongir, at that time, the driver of one car, drove the vehicle and hit the Auto due to 9CC. No.411/2013 which his brother-in-law Sathyanarayana fell down and the car went on him due to which his brother-in-law Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot. He further stated that he got injury on ribs. LW9 sustained injuries on head and mouth due to which she lost her teeth and she got paralyzed. LW6 sustained injury on his leg. Others also sustained injuries.
Police examined him and recorded his statement on the next day of incident. He further stated that he cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle.
19.PW-5/Rudraram Roopa, the Injured has deposed that PW1 is her aunt.
PW2 is her maternal aunt. PW4 is her father. PW3 is her maternal aunt.
LW6 is her husband. She does not know LW7. She knows LW8. LW9 is her mother. She does not know LW10 to LW12. She does not know accused.
Deceased Sathyanarayana is her maternal Uncle. She further stated that about 10 years back on one day she, her maternal uncle A.
Sathyanaryana along with their relatives PW2, PW3, PW4, LW6, LW9 and others were proceeding in one auto from Raigiri to Annampatla for attending marriage function of their relative Anil Kumar when they stopped near Singannagudem, Bhongir as her son was vomiting and when they started, at that time, the driver of one car, drove the vehicle and hit the
Auto due to which her maternal uncle Sathyanarayana fell down and the car went on him due to which her maternal uncle Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot. She further stated that she got injury on her stomach and legs due to which she got abortion. LW6 10CC. No.411/2013 sustained injury on his leg. Others also sustained injuries. She further stated that police examined her and recorded her statement. She further stated that she can identify the driver of the crime vehicle. She identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle who is present in the court hall.
20. PW-6/Rudraram Ravi, the Injured, has deposed that PW1 is his aunt.
PW2 is his aunt. PW4 is his father-in-law. PW3 is his aunt. PW5 is his wife.
He does not know LW7. He knows LW8. LW9 is his mother-in-law. He does not know LW10 to LW12. He does not know accused. Deceased
Sathyanarayana is his relative. He further stated that about 10 years back on one day he, his relative A. Sathyanaryana along with their relatives
PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, LW9 and 3 others were proceeding in one auto which was being driven by him from Raigiri to Annampatla for attending marriage function of their relative Anil, when they stopped near
Singannagudem, Bhongir as police were checking and when he took U-turn at that time the driver of one Tavera, drove the vehicle and hit their Auto due to which his relative Sathyanarayana fell down and the Tavera went on him due to which his relative Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot. He further stated that his wife/PW5 got injury on her stomach, head and legs. He sustained injury on his leg. Others also sustained injuries. Police examined him and recorded his statement on the next day of incident. He further stated that he can identify the driver of the crime vehicle. He identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle who is present in the court hall.
11CC. No.411/2013
21.During the cross-examination, PW-06 stated that sitting capacity of his auto is four passengers including driver. He further stated that it is true that 10 members sitting in the auto is against law.
22.PW-7/Amanaganti Uppalaiah, the Injured deposed that PW1 is his sister-in-law PW2 is his sister. PW4 is his brother-in-law. PW3 is his sister.
PW5 is his relative. PW6 is son-in-law of his sister. LW7 is his relative. He knows LW9. He does not know LW10 to LW12. He does not know accused.
Deceased Sathyanarayana is his brother. He further stated that about 10 years back on one day he, his relative A. Sathyanaryana along with their relatives PW2, PW3, PW4, LW7, LW9 were proceeding in one auto which was being driven by son-in-law of LW9 from Raigiri to Annampatla for attending marriage function of their relative Anil when they reached near
Singannagudem, Bhongir at that time the driver of one big vehicle, which was coming from Hyderabad dashed to their Auto due to which his relative
Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot. He further stated that he sustained injury on head. Others also sustained injuries. Police did not examine him and record his statement. He further stated that he has not seen the driver of the said big vehicle as such he cannot identify the driver.
23. PW-08/Taduri Rajeswari, the Injured stated that deceased is her father-in-law. PW1 is her mother-in-law. PW2 is her paternal aunt. PW4 is her relative. PW3 is her grand mother by relation. PW5, PW6, LW7 to LW9 and LW12 are their relative. She does not know LW10. She does not know 12CC. No.411/2013 accused. She further stated that on 15.02.2013 she, her father-in-law A.
Sathyanaryana along with their relatives PW1 to PW6, LW7 to LW9 and
LW12 were proceeding in one auto bearing No.7214 which was being driven by one Ravi/LW6/PW6 from Raigiri to Annampatla for attending marriage function of their relative Anil. When they reached near
Singannagudem, Bhongir at that time the driver of one Tavera car, which was coming from Alair to Hyderabad, drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to their Auto due to which her father-in-law Sathyanarayana sustained injuries and died on the spot. She further stated that she sustained injury on her legs. All others who are inmates of auto also sustained injuries. Police examined her and recorded her statement. She further stated that she can identify the driver of said
Tavera vehicle. She identified accused who is present in the court hall as the driver of said Tavera vehicle at the time of incident.
24.During the cross-examination, PW-08 stated that on the day of incident about 10 to 11 members were going in the said auto including driver. She further stated that about 4 members were sitting in passenger seats in the said auto. She further stated that two members sat on either side of driver of the said auto. She further stated that remaining members sat on wooden plank opposite to passengers seat. She further stated that her deceased father-in-law was sitting beside driver of auto on right side of driver. She further stated that she has not stated to the police that she can identify the driver of said Tavera vehicle if she sees him.
13CC. No.411/2013
25.On careful perusal of evidence of PW-2 to PW-8, it reveals that PW-2 to PW-8 during their chief-examination stated that about 12 years back on one day while they along with deceased/M. Sathyanarayana and others were proceeding in one Auto from Raigiri to Annampatla for attending marriage function, when they reached by pass road at that time the accused being driver of Tavera vehicle hit Auto due to which deceased
Sathyanarayana fell down and died on the spot and they sustained injuries.
But PW-3 during cross-examination stated that he did not see driver of said
Sumo at the time of incident. Therefore, the identification of accused by
PW-3 cannot be considered as it creates suspicious. Further, PW-2 during chief-examination identified accused as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident. But during cross-examination he stated that he did not state to the police that he can identify the accused if he sees him. Which goes to show that PW-2 for the first time during chief-examination stated that he can identify the driver of the crime vehicle if he sees him.
Therefore, PW-2 identifying accused for the first time in the court hall cannot be believed. Further PW-4, who is alleged eye-witness during chief- examination stated that he cannot identify the driver of crime vehicle.
Therefore, PW-4 being eye-witness did not support the case of prosecution by stating that he cannot identify the driver of crime vehicle. Further,
PW-5, PW-6 and PW-8 during chief-examination stated that they can identify the driver of crime vehicle and identified the accused as the driver of crime vehicle. But as seen from the 161 statement of PW-5, PW-5 failed 14CC. No.411/2013 to state that she can identify the driver of crime vehicle. Which goes to show that PW-5 for the first time before this court stated that she can identify the driver of crime vehicle, which is material omission. Therefore, it is doubtful whether PW-5 correctly identified accused as the driver of crime vehicle.
26.Further, another alleged eye-witness PW-7 during chief-examination stated that he did not see the driver of crime vehicle as such he cannot identify the driver. Therefore, PW-7 being eye-witness failed to identify accused as the driver of crime vehicle. Therefore, the evidence of PW-7 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
27.Further, it is the case of prosecution that the accused being the driver of crime vehicle drove the crime vehicle in rash or negligent manner at high speed. But driving a vehicle at high speed itself does not constitute as negligent act. Further, as stated earlier the evidence of alleged eye-witnesses PW-2 to PW-8 is not corroborating with the evidence of each-other in connection to identification of accused as the driver of crime vehicle. It is well settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused for the said offence beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case relying upon the evidence of PW-2 to PW-8, in view of the above reasons, it cannot be stated that accused being driver of said crime vehicle drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner, beyond all reasonable doubt.
15CC. No.411/2013
28.Therefore, basing the evidence of PW-2 to PW-8 it cannot be said that accused committed the offences as alleged by the prosecution.
29. PW-1/Avanaganti Mangamma, the informant, deposed that she knows
LW2 to LW9. She does not know accused. Deceased Sathyanarayana is her husband. She further stated that about 12 years back on one day her husband A. Sathyanaryana along with their relatives LW2 to LW9 and others and she along with others were going to Annampatla village,
Bibinagar mandal for attending marriage function of their relative Anil
Kumar in two different Autos when they reached Singganna gudem at that time the driver of one Thavera vehicle which was proceeding from
Hyderabad to Warangal drove the vehicle and hit the Auto in which her husband and their relatives were in due to which her husband sustained injuries all over his body and died on the spot and LW2, LW3, LW4, LWS,
LW'9 and others sustained injuries. She further stated that the driver of
Thavera Vehicle drove the vehicle over the body of her husband. Hence, she lodged the report against the accused. Ex.P1 is the report. Police examined her and recorded her statement.
30.During the cross-examination, PW-01 stated that she has not witnessed the incident. She further stated that since she was in another auto, She does not know how incident occurred. She further stated that she does not know reading and writing Telugu.
31.As seen from the evidence of PW-1, PW-1 during cross-examination stated that she did not witness the incident. Therefore, the evidence of 16CC. No.411/2013
PW1 shows that she is not eye-witness to the incident. Therefore, in view of the above reasons the evidence of PW-1, whose evidence is corroborative in nature, is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
32.PW-09/Bojja Venkatesh the panch for scene and Inquest deposed that he knows LW-14. On 16.02.2013 at 6.30 PM an Accident took place at
Signannagudem Village, Bhongir Mandal due to collusion of Auto and Car due to which one person got injured and died. He further stated that thereafter, the dead body of deceased was shifted to Bhongir Area
Hospital, Post Mortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased. Then,
Police conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of him and LW-14.
He further stated that thereafter, Police called him and LW-14 to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of them, and drafted rough sketch. Ex.P-2: is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P-3: is the rough sketch. Ex.P-4: is the inquest panchanama.
33.As seen from the evidence of PW-9, it reveals that police conducted inquest panchanama, scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch in the presence of PW-9 and LW-14. Except it, he did not state anything incriminating against the accused.
34. PW-10/Dr.K.Madhu Kumar, who Conducted PME deposed that on 16.02.2013, he received requisition from SHO, PS. Bhongir town to conduct
PME examination on dead body of A.Sathyanarayana. He further stated that he has started examination at 01.00 p.m on 16-02-2013 and found 17CC. No.411/2013 following injuries on the dead body of accused i.e., (1) Swelling and deformity at right shoulder on dissection fracture right humerus, (2)
Punctured wound over right side of chest, (3) Contusion over right side of chest about 5 X3 cm.,(4) Small and multiple contusions over abdomen, (5)
Swelling diformity of both thighs on dissection fracture of both femur bone, (6) Crushed wound over right and left leg with exposing muscles and bones. Cause of death due to Hypovulumic Shock due to head injury associated with blunt injury abdomen and Polytruma. Ex.P5 is the requisition. Ex.P6 is the PME report.
35.On careful perusal of evidence of PW-10, it reveals that PW-10 being a doctor conducted Post Mortem Examination on the dead body of deceased A.Satyanarayana on requisition from SHO concerned. Except it, he did not state anything incriminating against the accused.
36.PW-11/Naresh Sangem, who inspected the crime vehicle deposed that on 28.02.2013 he received a requisition from SHO PS Bhongir town to inspect crime vehicle bearing No. AP 29 BE 9490, which is a maxi cab make of general motors. He further stated that accordingly on the same day at 4.30 pm he inspected said crime vehicle in the premises of PS
Bhongir town and found damages mentioned in the column No. (8) of MVI report/Ex.P7 and he inspected break system and found intact. He further stated that he is of the opinion that the accident was occurred "not due to any mechanical defects". Ex.P7 is the MVI report issued by him.
18CC. No.411/2013
37.As seen from the evidence of PW-11, it reveals that PW-11 being
Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued report/Ex.P7. Except it, he did not state anything incriminating against the accused.
38. PW-12/Dr.B.V. Ranjith Kumar, who issued Medical Certificate deposed that on 15.02.2013, he received requisition from SHO, PS. Bhongir town to examine injured persons/LW2 to LW9, LW11 and LW12. Accordingly, he examined LW2 to LW9, LW11 and LW12 and issued wound certificates. He further stated that LW2/PW2, LW3/PW4, LW5/PW5, LW6/PW6, LW8/PW7,
LW9, LW11/PW8, LW12 sustained simple injuries and LW7, PW3/LW4 sustained grevious injuries. Ex.P8 to Ex.P17 are requisitions of SHO Bhongir town. Ex.P18 to P27 are wound certificates of injured persons.
39.As seen from the evidence of PW12, it reveals that PW12 being doctor examined PW-2, PW-4 to PW-7, LW-9, PW-8, LW-12 and issued Ex.P8 to Ex.P27. Except it, he did not state anything incriminating against the accused.
40. Then, there remains evidence of PW-13/V.Swamy/Investigating
Officer, whose evidence is formal in nature, his evidence reveals about receiving of report, issuance of FIR, recording of statements of witnesses, conducting scene of offence panchanama, inquest panchanama and rough sketch and filing of charge sheet. Except it, he did not state anything incriminating against the accused.
19CC. No.411/2013 41.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, and for the reasons stated above, it is concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt, as such, he is entitled to be acquitted. The point is answered, accordingly.
42 In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Code of Criminal
Procedure. Accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.
...Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 26th day of March, 2025.
Sd/-(Smt.G.Kavitha)
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bhongir.
Appendix of evidence:
Witnesses examined for
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW-1 : Avanaganti Mangamma is the informant,-NIL-
PW-2 : Gajaraju Buchamma is the injured,
PW-3 : Vadlakonda Balamma is the injured,
PW-4 : M.Kistaiah is the Injured,
PW-5 : Rudraram Roopa is the Injured,
PW-6 : Rudraram Ravi is the Injured,
PW-7 : Amanaganti Uppalaiah is the Injured, 20CC. No.411/2013
PW-8 : Taduri Rajeswari is the Injured,
PW-9 : Bojja Venkatesh is the panch for scene and Inquest,
PW-10 : Dr.K.Madhu Kumar is the Conducted PME,
PW-11 : Naresh Sangem is the Inspected the crime vehicle,
PW-12 : Dr.Ranjith Kumar is the issued Medical Certificates,
PW-13: V.Swamy is the Arrested the Accused.
Exhibits marked:
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1 : is the report,NIL
Ex.P2 : is the scene of offence panchanama,
Ex.P3 : is the rough sketch,
Ex.P4 : is the inquest panchanama,
Ex.P5 : is the requisition,
Ex.P6 : is the PME report,
Ex.P7 : is the MVI report,
Ex.P8 to Ex.P17 : are requisitions of SHO Bhongir Town,
Ex.P18 to Ex.P27 : are wound certificates of injured persons,
Ex.P28 : is the FIR.
MATERIAL OBJECTS:-
- Nil -
Sd/-(Smt.G.Kavitha)
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bhongir.