1
APPR110014642022
Calendar and Judgment in C.C. No. 868 of 2022 on the file of I-Addl.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur
1. Date of Offence: 06-05-2022
2. Date of report : 07-05-2022
3. Date of arrest of accused(A1: Accused (A1 and A2) were and A2)served with notice under
Section 41A CrPC
4. Date of release on bail: --
5. Date of commencement of: 04-12-2023 trial
6. Date of close of Trial: 13-02-2025
7. Date of Judgment: 08-05-2026
8. Complainant : The State represented by the
Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur
Police Station
9. Accused(A1 and A2): 1. Modala Srinu @ Srinivaas, S/o
Venkateswarlu, aged about 35 years, R/o Gangayepalli Village,
Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa
District. (A1)
2. Modala Venugopala Krishna, s/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 39 years, R/o Gangayepalli
Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR
Kadapa District. (A2)
2
10. Offence: Under section 338 of IPC & section 134(a)(b) r/w 187of M.V
Act.
11. Plea of accused A1 and A2: Pleaded not guilty
12. Finding of court: A2 Found not guilty
A1 found guilty under section 338 of IPC & section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act.
13. Sentence or order : In the result, this court found accused/A1 guilty of the offence under section 338 of IPC & sections 134(a),(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and he is convicted for the offence under section 255(2) of Criminal Procedure Code and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and he is further sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 4 months for the offence punishable under Section 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of MV Act . Both sentences shall run concurrently. Further, the convict is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the injured person (i.e., PW1) under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The said compensation amount shall be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of 30 days, which shall be in addition to the
principal sentence. It is needless to state that the substantive
sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently; however, the sentences of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of compensation shall run consecutively, as it cannot be directed to run concurrently. A2 is found not guilty for the offence under section 338 of
IPC & sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act and he is acquitted for those offences under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused/A2 shall be in force for a period of six months from
3
the date of this Judgment as contemplated under Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to property.
14. Explanation for delay : This case was taken on file on 30-06- 2022 by this court for the offence under section 338 of IPC & section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act. On 11-05-2023 accused/A1 and A2 appeared before this court and case copies are furnished to accused/A1 and A2. On 04-12-2023, accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code, for the offence under
Section 338 of IPC & sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act and the accusation was read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW8 were examined andEx.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked and the evidence of Prosecution was closed. On 13.02.2025 the accused/A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 of Criminal
Procedure Code, they denied the incriminating material found against them and reported no defence evidence. Hence defence evidence is closed. On 08-05-2026 heard arguments and on the same day
Judgment pronounced vide separate Judgment, Hence the delay.
Sd/- K. Bharath Chandra
I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS
GIDDALUR
4
IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS: GIDDALUR
PRESENT : SRI K.BHARATH CHANDRA
I-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: GIDDALUR ::
Friday, this the 08th day of May, 2026.
Calendar Case No. 868 of 2022
Between:
State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Giddalur Police Station. .… Complainant
And
1. Modala Srinu @ Srinivaas, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 35 years,
R/o Gangayepalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. (A1)
2. Modala Venugopala Krishna, s/o Venkateswarlu, aged about 39 years, R/o Gangayepalli Village, Kalasapadu Mandal, YSR Kadapa
District. (A2)
…. Accused/A1 and A2
This case has come up on 05.05.2026 for final hearing
before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
the complainant and of Sri P.N.Sesha Sayana Reddy, Sri J.R.Mohan, and
Sri M.Ranga Reddy, learned Advocates for Accused/A1 and A2, and the matter having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court delivered the following :
// J U D G M E N T //
1. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Giddalur Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 and
A2 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code &
5
sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187, 196 of M.V Act, in Crime No. 198 of 2022 of
Giddalur Police Station.
2.The brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are recapitulated under:
On06.05.2022atabout05.00PM the defacto-complainant/P.W.1-Sk. Mahaboob Sharief along with PW4
Sk.Mahaboob Basha, who is colleague of PW1, left his office and were proceeding to Porumamilla Village on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.
AP 04 BJ 5093 and when they reached near Electrical Sub-Station,
Uyyalawada Village, in mean time, the accused/A1, who was driving a car bearing Registration No. AP 04 TV 5993, allegedly drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, at high speed, and allegedly collided with the motorcycle of PW1, for which PWs 1 and 4 fell down and received injuries. Thereafter, PWs 1 and 4 were shifted to DGR Hospital and after receiving first aid, and on the advice of medical officer, PW1 was shifted to GBR Hospital, Narasaraopeta and on receipt of hospital intimation, FIR came to be registered as Cr.No.198/2022 on the basis of recording the hospital statement of PW.1 by police and the investigating officer PW.7-B.Brahma Naidu, Sub-Inspector of Police,
Giddalur PS, immediately secured the presence of PWs 3 and 5 and one
Venkataiah and recorded their statements and proceeded to the
Narasaraopeta Hospital, and secured the presence of PWs 1, 2 and 4 and recorded their statements. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared scene observation report duly signed by mediators, rough sketch and issued 41-A CrPC notice to accused/A1 and A2 on their surrender, received wound certificate of PW1 and filed section alteration memo & concluded his investigation and thereafter he filed charge-sheet.
6
3.After taking cognizance by this court for the offence under
Section 338 of IPC & sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, issued summons to accused/A1 and A2, furnished copies of Police report and other documents, free of cost, as contemplated under Section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code (For short Cr.P.C) to accused/A1 and A2 on their appearance. After satisfying that prima-facie case exists against the accused/A1 and A2, put a notice of accusation under section 251 of
Cr.P.C for the offence under section 338 of IPC & sections 134(a),(b) r/w 187 of M.V Act, in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4.The prosecution, in order to bring home the offence, examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8. The evidence of other witnesses cited in the charge-sheet was closed by my learned predecessor. After closure of prosecution evidence the accused/A1 and
A2 were examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, they denied the incriminating material found against them and reported no defence evidence.
5.Heard the arguments of both sides.
6.Now the point for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt?”
7.POINT: The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of ac- cused persons examined PWs 1 to 8.
8.PW1, Shaik Mahaboob Shareef, is both the injured witness and an eyewitness to the incident. He deposed that on 06.05.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., while he was proceeding from Giddalur to
7
Porumamilla on a two-wheeler along with PW4, Mahaboob Basha, and after crossing the Uyyalawada check post, a car coming from the opposite direction in the wrong lane dashed against their motorcycle.
As a result, both fell down and sustained injuries. PW1, who was driving the vehicle, suffered a fracture to his left leg along with bleeding injuries on his head, hands, and knees. PW4, the pillion rider, also sustained injuries. PW1 further stated that he immediately informed
PW2 and others over the phone, and with the help of local people, both injured were shifted in a 108 Ambulance to DGR Hospital, Giddalur, and later to GBR Hospital, Narasaraopet, for better treatment, where his statement was recorded by the police. He clearly attributed the cause of the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the accused (A1).
9.In cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he had not mentioned the vehicle number in Exhibit P1, explaining that in the confusion following the accident, he did not note it. He also stated that he did not know the accused prior to the incident and came to know about him later. This admission, rather than weakening the prosecution case, strengthens it since absence of prior acquaintance reduces the likelihood of false implication. Being an injured witness, his presence at the scene is unquestionable, and his testimony carries great evidentiary value.
10.Turning to PW2, Shaik Mahaboob Basha, he is not an eyewitness but corroborates the evidence of PW1 regarding the immediate telephonic intimation about the accident and injuries. As a hearsay witness, his testimony is limited in scope but supports the chain of events.
11.PW3, Shaik Mahaboob Peera, is also not an eyewitness.
However, upon receiving information from PW1, he rushed to the spot,
8
found PW1 in an injured condition with bleeding injuries, and shifted him to the hospital. His evidence supports the immediate aftermath of the incident and the fact that PW1 sustained injuries in a road accident.
12.PW4, Shaik Mahaboob Basha, is another injured eyewitness.
He stated that while travelling with PW1, a car coming from the opposite direction dashed against their bike. He candidly admitted that he did not know the car number or the identity of the driver. He described how PW1 fell forward and sustained severe injuries, while he himself fell aside and suffered minor injuries. His natural and straightforward testimony enhances his credibility.
13.Significantly, during cross-examination, the defence suggested that the accident occurred due to the negligence of PW1, implying that their bike hit the car. This suggestion itself amounts to an admission of the presence of the car and its driver at the scene. The defence did not dispute the presence of the accused at the spot, nor did they suggest that the accused was not involved. Thus, the presence of the accused and the vehicle stands implicitly admitted.
14.Further, the suggestion that PW1 sustained self-inflicted injuries is inherently improbable. No reasonable person would cause grievous injuries to himself and falsely implicate an unknown person without any motive. Such a suggestion lacks credibility and appears to be a desperate attempt to discredit the witness.
15.PW6, Dr. K. Sandeep, Orthopedic Surgeon at DGR Hospital, deposed that he examined PW1 and found a fracture of the upper third of the femur along with other injuries. He opined that the injuries were grievous, fresh in nature, and could have been caused in a road traffic accident. His testimony is supported by medical records (Exhibit P3 and
9
P8). The defence suggestion that such injuries could result from a skid fall does not contradict the prosecution case, as even according to the prosecution, PW1 fell from the bike, however, the fall was due to the impact caused by the accused’s vehicle. The suggestion that the doctor issued a false certificate is baseless and unsupported by any evidence of bias or motive.
16.P.W.7, the Sub-Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer, categorically deposed that the accused surrendered before him along with the vehicle documents. Significantly, this aspect of his testimony remained unchallenged in the cross-examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating Officer on this aspect. A police officer is as competent and reliable a witness as any other witness, and his testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is a police official, unless there are convincing reasons to distrust his evidence. Further, the present case does not arise out of any political rivalry, factional dispute, or land dispute where there could be scope for false implication at the instance of an interested party. It is a straightforward case relating to a rash and negligent act committed by the accused, resulting in injuries to the victim. In such circumstances, there is no apparent reason for the police to falsely depose that the accused had surrendered before them. The evidence of
P.W.7, coupled with the consistent testimony of the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence on record, clearly establishes the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time.
17.The defence consistently suggested that PW1 and PW4 fell from the bike, thereby indirectly admitting the occurrence of the accident and the injuries. Their alternative version that the bike hit the
10
car still places the accused’s vehicle at the scene, thereby reinforcing the prosecution case regarding the involvement of the accused.
18.On perusal of Exhibit P5 (rough sketch), it is evident that the
Investigating Officer has clearly marked the scene of the offence on the left-hand margin of the road while proceeding in that direction, whereas PW1 and PW4 were on the correct side of the road. According to the rough sketch, as well as the prosecution’s version, the vehicle that struck them was on the wrong side. The learned counsel for the defence vehemently argued that the vehicles were not shown in the rough sketch. However, the absence of images of vehicles in the rough sketch does not detract from its evidentiary value.
19.Once the scene of the offence, along with the road margins, has been depicted by the Investigating Officer, the absence of specific depiction of vehicles at the spot is not of much significance, particularly because this is not a case involving a stationary vehicle or a death at the scene. The prosecution’s case is that the car driven by the accused (A1), after striking PW1 and PW4, fled from the scene. It is also not the case that the car was stationary at the time to be reflected in the rough sketch. Moreover, by its very nature, a ‘rough sketch’ is not expected to be drawn with meticulous detail. The rough sketch of the scene of the accident is important to identify the actual location where the accident occurred and would assist the Court in reaching a correct conclusion regarding the place of occurrence. It need not, however, be regarded as the be-all and end-all of evidence.
20.Further, PW1, while in a conscious state, telephoned PW2, who in turn informed PW3. PW3 came to the spot and shifted PW1 and
PW4 to DGR Hospital, Giddalur. Thereafter, PW2 shifted PW1 to
Narasaraopet Hospital for better treatment. The doctor examined the
11
injured at 05:40 p.m., whereas the incident occurred at about 05:00 p.m.
21.The learned counsel for the defence also argued that, in his chief examination, PW4 stated that he jumped from the vehicle and therefore the accident occurred due to his jumping and not due to the act of the accused/A1. This contention cannot be accepted. A perusal of the chief examination of PW4 shows that he deposed that immediately after the accident, PW1 fell on the front side and sustained a fracture to his leg, and he himself fell into the fields in the course of jumping. This indicates that the fall occurred as a consequence of the accident. It must be understood in that manner. In the absence of a specific statement to the contrary, a negative interpretation namely that the accident occurred due to his jumping and not due to the act of the accused cannot be drawn.
22.The medical evidence of PW6, the doctor, lends strong corroboration to the ocular testimony. The grievous injuries sustained by PW1, particularly the fracture, are consistent with a road traffic accident. The defence suggestion that such injuries could be due to a fall by skid does not probabilize their version, as the prosecution case itself is that the victims fell due to the impact caused by the offending vehicle.
23.The evidence of PW7, the Investigating Officer, establishes the registration of the case, conduct of investigation, and importantly, the fact that the accused 1 and 2 surrendered before him on 10.05.2022 along with the crime vehicle records and after confirming their identity particulars, he served 41-A CrPC notices to both of them.
This aspect has not been seriously challenged by the defence, thereby
12
lending further assurance to the prosecution case regarding the involvement of the accused/A1.
24.It is a well known fact that direct evidence of negligence is not always available particularly in accident cases and Negligence in such cases may be inferred by the court from the facts and circumstances of the case.
25. During his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused/A1 simply denied all the allegations. He refrained from making any statement, even in response to the general question asked at the end as to whether he had anything further to say. He chose not to explain the manner in which the accident occurred. As a result, he failed to rebut the presumption of negligence attributed to him in connection with the accident. Moreover, he did not provide any explanation to suggest that the accident occurred due to a specific reason unrelated to his negligence.
26.It is a trite proposition of law that bigger the vehicle, bigger is the responsibility as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in K.
K. Mani v. The State reported in 2009 CRI. L. J. 4595
27.Mere driving vehicle in high and excessive speed itself is not an offence. However, considering the prevailing road condition at the time of the accident, the accused/A1 should have slowed down his speed and if he would have, then the accident would not have taken place.
28.Now, coming to the conduct of the accused/A1 immediately after the accident, this Court finds a significant incriminating circumstance. Both PW1 and PW4 have deposed that after the
13
accident, they were lying injured at the spot and were shifted to the hospital only with the help of others and ambulance services. There is no material to show that the accused stopped the vehicle, rendered any assistance, or made arrangements for their medical treatment. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the accused left the scene without caring for the injured.
29.This conduct is in clear violation of the statutory duty cast upon a driver under Sections 134(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which mandates that the driver must secure medical attention for the injured and report the incident. The failure of the accused/A1 to do so is not only unlawful but also reflects a culpable and negligent attitude.
The absence of any explanation from the defence regarding the conduct of the accused/A1 after the accident further strengthens this inference.
30.The suggestions made by the defence that the victims themselves fell down or that the accident occurred due to their negligence do not inspire confidence. On the contrary, such suggestions implicitly admit the occurrence of the accident and the presence of the offending vehicle. The theory of self-inflicted injuries is wholly untenable and does not merit acceptance. Moreover, the defence’s suggestion that there are ups, downs, and pits on the road further underscores that the accused/A1 was required to exercise due care and caution while driving the vehicle.
31.Therefore, upon appreciation of the evidence of PW1 and
PW4, duly corroborated by the medical and investigative evidence, and taking into account the conduct of the accused/A1 in fleeing the scene without providing medical aid, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused/A1 drove the vehicle in a rash and
14
negligent manner, caused grievous injuries to PW1, and failed to discharge his statutory obligations.
32.My learned predecessor had inadvertently examined both
A1 and A2 for the offences under Section 338 of the IPC, Sections 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by explaining the substance of the accusation. However, the prosecution case is that A1 committed the act as the driver of the vehicle, while A2 was only the owner of the car, which was not covered by insurance.
Therefore, A2 cannot be held liable or punished under Section 338 of the IPC or Sections 134(a) and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as he was not the driver of the vehicle.
33.However, insofar as Accused No.2, being the owner of the offending vehicle, is concerned, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged violation relating to use of an uninsured vehicle. Though an accusation under the relevant provision of the Motor Vehicles Act has been invoked in the charge sheet, no evidence has been adduced to prove that the vehicle in question was not covered by a valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident.
No documentary evidence, such as insurance verification, policy details, or certification from the concerned authority, has been placed on record. In the absence of such proof, mere allegation is insufficient to fasten criminal liability on A2.
34.It is a settled principle that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and prove each ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, therefore, necessarily ensures to Accused No.2. Accordingly, A2 is entitled to acquittal of the accusations levelled against him.
15
35.At the same time, the case against Accused No. 1 stands on a different footing. As discussed supra, the consistent and reliable evidence of PW1 and PW4, corroborated by medical evidence and, equally importantly, the testimony of the investigating officer, clearly establishes that A1 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, caused the accident, inflicted grievous injuries on
PW1, and failed to stop and render medical aid to the victims, in violation of his statutory duty. The prosecution has thus proved the accusation against A1 beyond reasonable doubt.
36. In the result, this court found accused/A1 guilty of the offence under section 338 of IPC & sections 134(a),(b) r/w 187 of M.V
Act and he is convicted for the offence under section 255(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code. A2 is found not guilty for the offence under section 338 of IPC & sections 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act and he is acquitted for those offences under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code.
The bail bonds of accused/A2 shall be in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to property.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- K. Bharath Chandra
I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
GIDDALUR.
16
Hearing on Quantum of Sentence :
37. When the convict (A1) was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence, he pleaded for mercy, stating that he is the sole breadwinner of his family containing wife, 2 small children female and male of 6 yrs and 5 yrs age respectively and aged parents dependent on him and prayed for a lenient view.
38.Sentencing is an important aspect in criminal matters. One of the primary objectives of criminal law is the imposition of an appropriate, adequate, just, and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused upon proof of crime. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in this area and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, this Court cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section. 338, I.P.C. and section 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of
MV Act as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the
Probation of Offenders Act.
39.In the present case, the wound certificate shows that PW1 sustained grievous injuries. When an accident occurs due to a rash or negligent act, it is the bounden duty of the offender to stop, render necessary medical aid, and inform the police. However, in this case, the convict failed to do so and instead fled from the spot, leaving the injured to their fate. This is a case of hit and run resulting in fracture injuries to the victim and it is an act endangering the life of others.
Although the offence under section 338 IPC is compoundable in nature, the Convict/A1 did not come forward to settle the matter amicably, nor did he offer to bear any medical expenses. Had he done so, there was a
17
possibility of compromise through Lok-Adalat. The convict/A1 has taken a stubborn stand.
40.In these circumstances, despite the submission of the learned counsel that the convict has no prior criminal record and deserves a compassionate view, this Court is not inclined to take a lenient view in light of the rash and negligent act resulting in injuries to the victim. Therefore, a sentence that aligns with both the goals of deterrence and rehabilitation will be considered, with due regard for the mitigating circumstances. This Court is inclined to award compensation under section 357(3) CrPC apart from imposing sentence.
41.Regarding award of compensation to victims of crime or their dependents under section 357 CrPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2013) 6 SCC 770 held while the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. It was further observed that the power to award compensation was intended to reassure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The victim would remain forgotten in the criminal justice system if despite the legislature having gone so far as to enact specific provisions relating to victim compensation, courts choose to ignore the provisions altogether and do not even apply their mind to the question of compensation. It follows that unless Section 357 is read to confer an obligation on the courts to apply their mind to the question of compensation, it would defeat the very object behind the introduction of the provision.
18
42.Section 357(3) Cr.P.C states that if the fine does not form part of the sentence of imprisonment, then compensation can be levied. There is no limit prescribed for imposing compensation under
Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Compensation shall be paid to the victims depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and capacity of the accused. Unlike fines, which are subject to limits under Section 29
CrPC for Magistrates, compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC is not capped. The amount of compensation is left to the discretion of the court, based on the circumstances of the case, the harm caused to the victim, and the financial capacity of the accused.
43. Whether a default sentence of imprisonment can be imposed in cases where compensation is awarded to the complainant under Section 357(3) CrPC was the moot question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court inVijayan v.
Sadanandan K. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 652, wherein, the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows : The provisions of Sections
357(3) and 431 CrPC, when read with Section 64 IPC, empower the
Court, while making an order for payment of compensation, to also include a default sentence in case of non-payment of the same.
44.In the circumstances of the case, directing the convict to pay monetary compensation under Section 357(3) CrPC, in addition to the sentence imposed, is a small yet meaningful step toward alleviating the suffering of the victim. This is not merely a matter of financial relief, but a gesture of restorative justice, intended to acknowledge the harm caused and ensure that the victim is not left to suffer without support.
45.Accordingly, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months for the offence punishable
19
under Section 338 IPC and he is further sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of 4 months for the offence punishable under Section 134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of MV Act . Both sentences shall run concurrently. Further, the convict is directed to pay a total compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) to the injured person (i.e., PW1) under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. The said compensation amount shall be paid within a period of one month from today, failing which the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for an additional period of 30 days, which shall be in addition to the
principal sentence. It is needless to state that the substantive
sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently; however, the sentences of imprisonment imposed in default of payment of compensation shall run consecutively, as it cannot be directed to run concurrently.
46. Set-off:
As per the record placed by the office after due verification, it reveals that accused was not under detention at any point of time.
Therefore, the question of set-off does not arise.
47. Property Order:
Since no property is seized in this case, there is no order with regard to property.
48. Apprisal of Right of Appeal to Convict:
The Convict (accused) is informed about the forum of appeal and time limit for preferring appeal. He stated that he has means to engage counsel on his behalf to prefer an appeal.
20
49. Direction to office:
The office is hereby directed to furnish a true copy of the
Judgment of this case to the convict as contemplated in Rule 72 of
Criminal Rules of Practice and Section 363 of Cr.P.C, forthwith free of cost and to receive the acknowledgment of the same from the convict.
Office shall place the record after 30 days for taking necessary steps against the convict, in the event of non-payment of compensation as ordered by this Court.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 08th day of May, 2026.
Sd/- K. Bharath Chandra
I-ADDL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
GIDDALUR
// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defense:
PW1: Shaik Mahaboob Shareef - NONE -
PW2: Shaik Mahaboob Basha
PW3: Shaik Mahaboob Peera
PW4: Sk. Mahaboob Basha
PW5: K.Swamy Dasu
PW6: Dr.K.Sandeep
PW7: B.Brahma Naidu
PW8: K.Papa Rao
21
Documents Marked
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1 : Statement of PW1 dt. 07-05-2022 NIL
Ex.P2 : Section 161 CrPC Statement of PW5 dt. 07-05-2022
Ex.P3 : Wound Certificate of PW1 dt. 04-06-2022
Ex.P4 : FIR in Cr.No. 198/2022 of Giddalur PS
Ex.P5 : Rough Sketch dt. 07-05-2022
Ex.P6 : Section Alteration Memo
Ex.P7 : Hospital Admit Intimation dt. 07-05-2022
Ex.P8 : Radiologist report of C.T scan-Pelvis and HIP (Plain) of PW1
dt. 06-05-2022
Material Objects:
NIL
Sd/- K. Bharath Chandra
I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
GIDDALUR.