1/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KHANAPUR
PRESENT:- SRI JITIN KUMAR,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
KHANAPUR.
Wednesday, this the 8 th day of January, 2025
C.C.No. 154 of 2021
Between:-
The State of Telangana Rep. by SI of police, PS Kadam …Complainant // and //
Banavath Laxman, S/o. Devla, Age: 48 years, Caste: ST Lambada, Occ: Driver, R/o. Nachan Yellapur village of Kadam Mandal, Nirmal District … Accused
Nature of offences: U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Finding of the Court: Guilty for the offence U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC
Sentence/Order: Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under Sec. 255 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 45 DAYS and to pay FINE OF Rs. 1,000/- (RUPEES ONE THOUSAND ONLY) for the offence U/Sec. 304A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10 DAYS for the offence U/Sec. 304A of IPC and further, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 45 DAYS and to pay FINE OF Rs. 1,000/- (RUPEES ONE THOUSAND ONLY) for the offence U/Sec. 338 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple 2/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
Imprisonment for a period of 10 DAYS for the offence U/Sec. 338 of IPC. Total fine amount comes to Rs.2,000/- (RUPEES TWO THOUSAND ONLY).Both sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any shall be set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.
Accused is informed that he has got right of appeal and he is also furnished with free copy of this Judgment.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned A.P.P.O for the complainant and of Sri M. Suresh and Smt. M. Kavitha, Counsels for accused and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration and this court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Kadam has filed charge sheet against accused in Cr. No. 31/2019 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 304A and 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC).
2.The case of the prosecution is that :
On14.03.2019at17.10hrs,thede-facto complainant/LW1/Pandiri Radha @ Chityala Radha lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 14.03.2019 morning when her husband/Pandiri
Rajeshwar @ Reddy and her brother in law/Pandiri Rajendar went to Peddur,
Kadam to attend funeral rites of their relatives on their motorcycle bearing
No. AP01 12 6973 and after completion of funeral rites when they reached
Nachan Yeallapur X road while returning home at about 16.40 hrs, one Tata
Magic bearing No. AP 23 Y 1869 which was coming in opposite direction 3/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
drove his vehicle in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to their vehicle as a result, her husband received bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot and also the pillion rider who is her brother in law also received injuries on his left leg. Further, LW1 stated that on enquiry, she came to know about the driver of the vehicle is Badavath Laxman/accused.
Hence, requested to take necessary action.
3.Basing on the complaint LW13/J. Rama Rao, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, PS Kadam registered a case in Cr. No. 31/2019 for the offence
U/Secs. 304A and 337 of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.
During the course of investigation, LW13 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and then on 15.03.2019 examined and recorded the statements of LWs. 2 to 5 (Pandiri Narsavva, Chityala Rajitha, Boddu
Rajalaxmi and Pothurajula Ganganna), visited mortuary room, observed the dead body of deceased and took photographs of the dead body with the help of LW6/Kakera Ramesh and then held Inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LWs. 7 and 8 (Chityala Ashok and Duvvaka
Poshanna). Later, LW13 gave requisition to Medical Officer,
Khanapur/LW10 to conduct autopsy over the dead body of deceased to know the actual cause of death and then, visited scene of offence situated at Nachan
Yellapur X road and conducted CDF panchanama and drew rough sketch of 4/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
scene of offence in the presence of LWs. 7 and 8. Further, LW13 gave requisition to MVI, Nirmal to visit PS and inspect the crime vehicle bearing
No. AP23 Y 1869. On 18.03.2019 at 1000 hrs, accused surrendered before
LW13 and on interrogation, accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the guilt of offence and when the accused was asked to produce driving licence, registration certificate and Insurance papers, he submitted all documents. Accordingly, the accused was served notices U/Sec. 41A Cr.P.C with a direction to attend before the concerned Court on receipt of summons.
On transfer and posting to PS Kadam, LW14/T. Mahesh, SI of police, PS kadam took up investigation from LW13 and verified the investigation done by his predecessor on correct and proper lines. LW14 re-examined the witnesses but did not re-record their statements separately as the witnesses reiterated their earlier statements. In the course of investigation, LW14 visited Ponakal village of Mamada Mandal, Nirmal District at the house of
LW9/Injured and there examined him and recorded his statement. On 25.08.2019 on the strength of Medical Certificate of LW9, LW14 altered section of law to 338 of IPC and then after obtaining all the relevant documents and after completion of investigation, LW14 filed charge sheet for the offence U/Sec. 304A and 338 of IPC.
4.This court took cognizance for the offence U/Secs. 304A and 338 of
IPC against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to him 5/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. and when he was examined, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the charge U/Secs. 304A and 338 of
IPC is framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language.
5.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the PWs. 1 to 8 and Exs. P1 to P11 were marked.
6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the prosecution evidence appeared against him, for which he denied the incriminating evidence of prosecution and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard, the arguments from both sides and perused the case record.
8.Now the point for determination is:- "Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubts for the offence U/Sec. 304A and 338 of IPC against the accused" ?
P O I N T:
9. The brief allegations against the accused is that, by driving his Tata
Magic rashly & negligently hit the Motor cycle and due to which, he caused death of one person namely Pandiri Rajeshwar and caused grievous injuries to LW9/PW5/P.Rajender which is punishable U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC.
10. In the case in hand, at the time of filing of charge sheet I.O has mentioned LWs. 1 to 14 as prosecution witnesses but PWs. 1 to 8 got 6/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
examined, whereas the evidences of LWs. 2, 3, 4 (Relatives of deceased) and
LW14/Second I.O., who filed charge sheet were given up by the Ld. APP.
and the evidence of LWs. 7 & 8 who are the panch witnesses for inquest and
CDF, their evidence is closed by this Court on account of their death. So, in the case in hand, PW1 is the complainant and wife of the deceased. PW2 is the Doctor who conducted Autopsy and issued PME Report. PW3 is the Eye witness. PW4 is the Photographer. PW5 is the injured and Eye witness. PW6 is the Doctor who has given treatment. PW7 is the Motor vehicle Inspector and PW8 is the I.O.
11. PW1 who is the de-facto complainant and wife of deceased has deposed that, about (4) Four years back her husband and LW9/PW5 went to
Nachana Yellapur village to attend Funeral of their relatives and while returning back to home and when reached outskirts of Nachana Yellapur village meantime, one Tata Magic came in opposite direction in high speed and dashed into the vehicle of her husband due to which both fell down and her husband received Head injury and died on the spot while PW5 received injuries over his left leg and all the information was given to her through phone by one Eye witness. Later, she went to Police Station and lodged a report and further came to know the name of the Driver of Crime vehicle as
One Laxman.
7/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
In Cross Examination of PW1 she said that, she does not know how to read and write and she does not know who informed about the accident and further do know who scribed the complaint and its contents also and further do not know about the person who informed her about particulars of accused and some suggestions were put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
12. PW2, who is the doctor, who conducted Autopsy and issued PME
Report has deposed that, while working as Civil Assistant surgeon at CHC
Khanapur, he received the requisition from PS Kadam for conducting the
Autopsy over the dead body of deceased namely Pandari Rajeshwar and accordingly he commenced the PME at 9.20 AM and found following ante mortem injuries:
1. Laceration 10 x 7 cms with expulsion of fronto temporal bone exposing brain matter on right side.
2. Contusion 21 x 15 cm over right Fronto- Temporo – perito – occipital region with underlying bone fracture.
3. Contusion 18 x 14 cms over right zygoma, cheek, upper lip, lower lip, chin with underlying Maxilla and mandible fracture.
4. Multiple contusions 10 x 6 cm over right side of neck, 13 x 6 cm over right side of chest, 6 x 4 cm over left side of chest.
He concluded PME at 10.20 AM on the same day and then, sent the viscera to the RFSL, Karimnagar. In his opinion the cause of death is due to head injury. ExP2 is the RFSL report. ExP3 is the PME report.
13. PW3, who is the Eye witness has deposed that, he does not know PW1 and deceased but he know accused. He further deposed that he does not know 8/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
anything about this case, he did not witness any incident and the police did not examine and did not record his statement. Thereafter, Ld. APP declared the witness as hostile and even after cross examining, nothing incriminatory could be elicited against the accused.
14. PW4, who is the Photographer has deposed that, on 15.03.2018 on the request of PS Kadam, he clicked the Photographs of dead body lying in
Khanapur hospital and accordingly he clicked 5 to 6 photographs. ExP5 is the
Photographs. He further deposed that, he came to know that, the incident happened at Nachana Yellapur village through dashing of one Tata Magic
Auto into Motor cycle.
In Cross Examination of PW4, he admitted that the police did not summon him and he is having no instruments for developing the photographs and then, the Police paid Rs.300/- and some suggestions were put by the Ld.
Counsel for the accused.
15. PW5, who is another Pillion Rider cum injured cum Eye witness has deposed that, deceased/P.Rajeshwar is his cousin. PW1 is the wife of deceased and before incident he do not know the accused only after the incident he came to know about the identity of the accused. About (5) Five years back, when he was traveling on his Motor cycle with his brother and when he reached outskirts of Nachana Yellapur village accused person came 9/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
from opposite direction in his Tata Magic Auto and dashed from front to their
Motor cycle and at that time his cousin brother who was driving the Motor cycle at that time Accused banged his Tata Magic Auto to our Motor cycle from front side due to which his younger brother died on spot and he received
Six (6) fracture injuries. He further deposed that, before accident he was very healthy and after accident he got disabled and not be able to move in a routine manner and four (4) Rods were also placed and correctly identified the accused.
In Cross Examination of PW5, he said right after the accident, he became unconscious and did not observe what happened. Thereafter, some suggestions were put by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
16. PW6, who has given treatment to PW5 deposed that while he was working as CAS Khanapur and after receiving the requisition from PS
Kadam he has given treatment to PW5 and found following injuries:-
1) Contusion over left Hip
2) Contusion over left knee joint
3) Laceration over Distal part of Thigh measuring 5x3x2 centimeters
4) Contusion over left leg and further advised for X-Ray.
and in his opinion the above injury No.1 is grievous in nature. Injury No.2 and 3 are also grievous in nature and Supra Coldylar fracture of Femur and
Injury No.4 Bone Fracture of Left leg. All injuries are fresh in nature. Hence
Medical certificate is marked as ExP6.
10/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
In Cross Examination of PW6 he said that, injuries mentioned in
Medical Certificate is possible if normal person falls from hard surface.
Further admitted that, he has not handed over the X-Ray to the Police, not mentioned the date of admission and date of discharge and not submitted any
Medical prescriptions of any higher care center and not mentioned the date of issuance of Medical certificate not mentioned the identification marks of victim and some suggestions were put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
17. PW7, who is the Motor vehicle Inspector deposed that while working as MVI, he received requisition from S.I. of PS Kadam to inspect the crime vehicle. Thereafter, he went to the Police station and inspected the crime vehicle and found damages of (i) Wind shield Glass broken and (ii) Left side
Door Damage and after inspecting the crime vehicle in his opinion accident is occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle.
In Cross Examination of PW7/T.Vijay Kumar, he said that, he has not visited or inspected the crime scene and not mentioned in column No.4 regarding the width and nature of Road and not inspected the Bike which was used by the deceased so as to ascertain the defect of such vehicle and not mentioned all the particulars of crime vehicle and not verified the record submitted by the Police and some suggestions were put by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused.
11/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
18. PW8, who is the I.O deposed that while working as A.S.I of PS
Kadam, on 14.03.2019 de-facto Complainant/P.Radha came to the Police
Station and lodged a report basing on which he registered a case in
Cr.No.31/2019, issued F.I.R and further submitted the investigation done by him.
In Cross Examination of PW8, he deposed that, PW1 lodged a written report and it is true in the Rough sketch and CDF he has not mentioned about skid marks of alleged Crime vehicle so as to ascertain rash and negligence of accused and in the Rough sketch he has mentioned the deceased was driving the alleged crime vehicle on the right side and in the FSL as well in the PME
Report, it is mentioned that, deceased sample was found Alcohol and there was one Hotel and Dhaba at the scene of offence and he has not examined that, Hotel and Dhaba persons and not mentioned the place where PW5 got examined and his 161 Cr.P.C. Statement was recorded. He further admitted that, TIP of the accused was not conducted and further not examined how may person were present in the crime vehicle and how may person were seated at front or back seat of crime vehicle and some suggestions were put by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
19. After perusal of the whole record including F.I.R, Complaint, 161
Cr.P.C. Statements, Chief Examinations, Cross Examinations and all Exhibits 12/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
marked, this Court finds that, the brief allegations against the accused is that, by driving his Tata Magic rashly & negligently hit the Motor cycle and due to which he caused death of one person namely Pandiri Rajeshwar and caused grievous injuries to LW9/PW5/P.Rajender, which is punishable U/Sec. 304A and 338 of IPC.
20. It is a well settled Principle of law that, whenever death causes and question comes before court then that question is to dealt with five fold inquiry as held in RICHHPAL SINGH MEENA VS GHASI AIR 2014 SC 3595: THUS A FIVE STEP INQUIRY IS NECESSARY
1) is there a homicide?
2) if yes is it a culpable homicide or “not culpable homicide”?
3) if it is a culpable homicide amounting to murder U/Sec. 300 IPC or falling within the purview of five exceptions to 300 IPC?
4) if not murder not culpable homicide then a case U/Sec. 304A IPC is made out or not?
5) if not all above then inquiry under section 72 IPC will be made applicable?
21. After applying the five fold inquiry there is homicide. There is no evidence of either murder or culpable homicide under step 2 and 3 respectively. Now question arises whether death is a result of rash and negligent act and to bring a cause of homicide U/Sec.304A of IPC ?. The prosecution must prove the following conditions as held by Hon'ble Apex
Court in its expression State of Punjab, Vs. Balwinder Singh and others 13/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
reported in (2012) 2 SCC 182. There must be death of the person in question:
1. The accused must have caused such death
2. That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide.
In order to attract Sec.304A of IPC, the death must be a direct result of rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause without intervention of another act of negligence. It must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act.
The cause of death is the primary point and negligent and rash act is the next point. Sec.304A of IPC presupposes the negligent act.
22. It is the case of the prosecution that on the fateful day of the accident, the accused being the rider of the Tata Magic bearing Reg. No.AP23Y1869 dashed from front in a very high speed and banged to deceased's motorcycle on which 2 persons were present. Out of 2 persons, one person/P. Rajeshwar died due to head injuries in the incident and another one received grievous injuries. In the case in hand, initially police filed charge sheet U/Secs. 304 A and 338 of IPC.
23. On careful scrutinization of the material evidence available on record, the first and foremost ingredient of Section 304A of IPC i.e., “There must be 14/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
death of the person in question” be proved by the oral evidence of
Prosecution witnesses coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.P3 which reveals that the deceased died due to head injuries which is causa causans and direct result of death due to head injuries.
24. The 2nd essential ingredient that “the accused must have caused such death”, in order to prove it, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the eye witnesses i.e., PW5 and one circumstantial witness i.e., PW1. PW1 clearly testified that, she received a call stating that, her husband expired due to an accident and later, she came to know about the identity of the accused as
Bhanavath Laxman. Thereafter, PW5 who is the Eye witness cum injured cum Pillion Rider of the vehicle has categorically identified the accused and his testimony after placing on the touch stone of truth, this Court finds that, after the accident, he became unconscious but, when the accident happened infront of him, he would have witnessed the face of the Driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly, he identified the accused as the rider of the vehicle and he even said that accused was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and earlier in his 161 Cr.P.C statement, he said the accused was driving the vehicle in a very high speed and drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to their motor cycle, as a result they fell down and sustained injuries, deceased/Rajeshwar sustained injuries to his head, PW5 15/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
sustained multiple injuries on his whole body and including some fractures and Rods were also implanted in his body and he has identified the person who drove the vehicle negligently on the date of accident; and identified the person standing in the court hall was the driver of the crime vehicle. Thus, the prosecution proved the ingredient that the accused caused death of the deceased.
25. Now, let us see the next and 3rd essential ingredient that, "such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount to culpable homicide" is able to establish by the prosecution. The evidence of PWs. 1 and 5 clearly testifies that the accused drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed to the two wheeler motorcycle of deceased and PW5.
26. The evidence of all Prosecution witnesses would prove the fact that the death of the deceased person was due to accident and the evidence of
PW5 coupled with Ex.P8 would show that the crime was registered on the complaint of PW1. According to Ex.P7 Motor Vehicle report, vehicle was functioning efficiently and where it is proved by evidence on record that the accused was the rider of the crime vehicle in question at relevant time and he caused the death by rash and negligent driving, he would be liable to be convicted U/Sec.304A of IPC. PWs.1 and 5 are the crucial witnesses testified 16/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
that the crime vehicle dashed motor cycle of deceased and PW5 testified that accused drove the same. The credit of the witnesses could not be impeached by the learned counsel for the accused during the cross-examination. The evidence of all Prosecution witnesses are corroborated by the evidence of other prosecution witnesses and all Exhibits marked. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent and cogent and the statements of the witnesses if read as a whole would certainly prove the fact that the accused drove the motor cycle in rash and negligent manner and not even minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses is found by this Court.
27. There is clear evidence to prove that the Tata Magic bearing Reg.
No.AP23Y1869 of the accused hit the motorcycle of deceased and the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased and ocular testimony of the witnesses coupled with medical evidences in Ex. P3 would prove that the deceased died due to head injury.
28. Negligence or rashness are essential elements and rashness means doing an act with consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with hope that it will not and negligence is a breach of duty imposed in law.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its expression Jacob Mathew
V/S. State Of Punjab reported in AIR 2005 SC 3180 held that in criminal 17/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
law negligence or recklessness must be of such a high degree as to be “Gross”. The impression rash or negligent act as occurring in Sec. 304A of
IPC has to be read as qualified by the word “Grossly. Therefore, the expression rash or negligent act has to be read as qualified by the word “Grossly”. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or in difference as to the consequences. In this case, the evidence would prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle with indifference as to the consequences though he was aware of the fact that the over speed of his vehicle would kill any one or have may have bitter consequences.
30. Criminal negligence is the gross and Culpable Neglect or Failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which, the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted as held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its expression Rathnashalvan, Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in AIR 2007 SC 1064. In all probabilities, the accident would have occurred due to negligence or rashness and the materials placed
before the Court by the prosecution would establish the rashness or
negligence of the accused and such negligence is culpable or gross.
18/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
31. The learned APP submitted in his arguments that, it is the clear case of
Section 304A of I.P.C and the material witnesses i.e., PW1 stated that she can identify the driver of the accident vehicle, and also identified the accused as the driver of the accident vehicle, she never tilted in her evidence to testify that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motor cycle driven by deceased and PW5 resulting in death of the driver of Motor cycle, causing grievous injuries to
PW5. He also contended that all the prosecution witnesses corroborated among all towards the fact that accused committed the offence and the accused is responsible for the accident. Examination of accused of Nothing prosecution was elicited witnesses for the favorable cross, he argued that the case of the prosecution is proved beyond all reasonable doubt through the evidences of prosecution witnesses and hence requested the court to convict the accused. On the contra, the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused by the learned defence counsel that no elicitation were made from the prosecution witnesses in this regard, and even no adequate suggestions were given to prosecution witnesses in that regard, hence it does not holds water.
Since, the Accused being the rider of the Tata Magic shall be in capacity to control his vehicle, but in the instant case, the Accused has no control and dashed to the motorcycle on a high speed resulting in death of the driver of the motor cycle of namely P.Rajeshwar/deceased. There is no other 19/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
elicitation from the prosecution witnesses to that effect, hence the defence of the accused does not stands good. He also contended that none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, hence the accused may be acquitted. The learned counsel during the arguments submitted that the witnesses are interested witnesses and there are discrepancies. The argument of the learned counsel cannot be sustained merely because the witnesses are injured in the accident. As it has been observed supra that merely because the witnesses are injured is no ground to disbelieve them if their evidence is otherwise truthful and credible. It is well settled law that is merely because there are some discrepancies itself is not a ground to reject the evidence of a witness in toto and normal discrepancies are those which are due to normal errors of observation, of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of the occurrence, which are always there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. Normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of prosecution case.
32. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its expression Brahma Swaroop, Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 SC 280 held that mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the evidence of 20/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
witnesses, and the mental faculties of human being vary from individual to individual and the prosecution witnesses might have confused but it is not a material defect to brush aside their entire evidence.
33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh, Vs. Krishna
Master reported in AIR 2010 SC 3071 held that the approach must be to see if the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth and if so the Court has to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view of the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on the vital matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of the context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some errors committed not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
34. The argument of learned counsel that the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffers from discrepancies and therefore, the evidence has to be discarded cannot be acceded to for the reason that the discrepancy is minor discrepancy and such discrepancy is not touching the core of the case as the core of the case is death of the deceased because of rash and negligent act of 21/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
the accused. As has been held by Apex Court in Krishna Master's Case stated supra hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of the context here and there from the evidence attaching importance to some errors not going to the root of the matter cannot permit the rejection of entire evidence as a whole.
35. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its expression in C. Muniappan, Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718, Prithu Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2070, State of Uttar Pradesh, Vs. Santhosh
Kumar Mishra, 2010 AIR SCW 6293 and in State of Rajasthan, Vs. Om
Prakash, AIR 2007 SC 2257 held that even if there are some omissions contradictions and discrepancies the entire evidence cannot be discarded.
Evidence has to be shifted with care and caution, to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements. The Court has to come to a conclusion whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses.
36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorle S. Naidu, Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 1169 and in Gubbala Venugopala Swamy, Vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2004 SC 2477 held that the Court must 22/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
weigh the evidence carefully and should not adopt any arbitrary formula or yardstick in measuring its worth or worthlessness.
37. If the substratum of the prosecution case remains unaffected and remaining part of the evidence is trustworthy, the prosecution case should accepted to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy. The Court must disengage truth from falsehood and accept what it finds to be true. If truth and falsehood are so intermingled to make it impossible to separate them the entire evidence may be rejected as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Kanbi
Nanji Virji, Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR20 1970 SC 219 and in Ranjit
Singh, Vs. State of Madhy Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 255 .
38. In this case, it is not the case where the evidence of all Prosecution witness or other witnesses are so intermingled to make it impossible to separate exaggeration or embroidery so to reject the entire evidence. In this case, all the witnesses have consistently testified about the rashness and negligence of the accused in driving the crime vehicle and the evidence of all the witnesses if read as a whole is cogent, clear and unimpeachable.
39. On closer scrutiny of the evidence on record would certainly establish that dashing means hitting very hard and dashing from front is totally with anticipation so, in the case in the hand, dashing from front on a very high speed comes with the preview of the rash and negligent act. The case of the 23/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
prosecution and the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused by oral and documentary evidence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, accused is liable to be convicted for the offence U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC in this case.
40. Therefore, this Court finds accused guilty for the offence punishable
U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.
255 (2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation, after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of January, 2025.
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
KHANAPUR
QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
41. Heard, accused on the quantum of sentence. He pleaded that, he is bread winner of his entire family consisting of wife and two children and then, he is suffering old age ailments and he requested that he may be let off by taking lenient view. Further, In view of the nature of the offence, this
Court is of the view that accused is entitled for taking lenient view considering the age factor of accusd.
42. IN THE RESULT, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Secs. 304A and 338 of IPC and accordingly, he is convicted under Sec.
24/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
255 (2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 45 DAYS and to pay FINE OF Rs. 1,000/- (RUPEES ONE
THOUSAND ONLY) for the offence U/Sec. 304A of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 10
DAYS for the offence U/Sec. 304A of IPC and further, accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 45 DAYS and to pay FINE
OF Rs. 1,000/- (RUPEES ONE THOUSAND ONLY) for the offence
U/Sec. 338 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 10 DAYS for the offence U/Sec. 338 of IPC.
Total fine amount comes to Rs.2,000/- (RUPEES TWO THOUSAND
ONLY). Both sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any shall be set off under Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.
Accused is informed that he has got right of appeal and he is also furnished with free copy of this Judgment.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of January, 2025.
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
KHANAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
(WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF)
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED: PW1: P. Radha @ Chityala Ratha -NONE- PW2: Vamshi Madhav 25/25
CC.No.154 of 2021
PW3: P. Ganganna PW4: K. Ramesh PW5: P. Rajender PW6: K. Shivakumar PW7: T. Vijay Kumar PW8: Jadav Rama Rao
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.P1: Report of PW1 to police - Nil - Ex.P2: RFSL report Ex.P3: PME report Ex.P4: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: (6) photographs along with CD Ex.P6: Medical certificate of PW5 Ex.P7: AMVI report Ex.P8: FIR Ex.P9: CDF Ex.P10: Rough Sketch Ex.P11: Inquest Report
MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
KHANAPUR