1 //Fair//
APVS0F0005662017
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, YELLAMANCHILI
Present: Sri K.Ramesh
Additional Junior Civil Judge cum
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Yellamanchili.
Thursday, this the 5 th day of February, 2026
C.C.No.357/2017
Between:
The State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta Police Station. ….complainant And:
Jilakarra Venkata Ramana, S/o.Late Veeranna, 48 years, R/o.Vippanapadu Village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Driver of Goods carriage HMV lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 5899.
...Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29-01-2026 in the presence of Smt.Yasmin Sultana, Ld.APP for the State and Sri BOVS Satyanarayana, Ld. Counsel for the Accused. Upon perusing the record, hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta Police Station filed
Chargesheet in Cr.No.61/2017 against the Accused for the offence punishable U/Section.304-A, 279 of IPC .
The brief facts of the case are as follows :
2.On 19.04.2017 the complainant/Ravada Yesu lodged a written 2 //Fair// report stating that on 19-04-2017 at evening 19:30hrs on NH-16 road his father was travelling on his cycle proceeding towards Nakkapalli to
Tuni road. In the meantime on NH-16 road at the same route one
Goods carriage HMV Lorry Bearing No.AP 37 W5899 driver which is overtake another lorry with high speed, and did not able to control the speed of that and came to close at left side of the road and dashed his father's cycle. As a result of which his father was fallen down on the road and the said lorry back wheel was embarked into his right leg. As a result his father right leg and thigh were crushed and died on the spot.
LW-1/Ravada Yesu came to know the incident, immediately came to the spot and found that his father Ravada Raju (60) was died. Later the dead body was kept at Mortuary room near CHC, Nakkapalli. Basing on the report of LW1/Ravada Yesu, LW-9/ASI of Police, Payakaraopeta
Police Station registered a case in crime No.61/2017 under Section 304-A, 279 of IPC. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence.
Later he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of
Panchayatdhars, photographed the dead body of deceased and sent the dead body for autopsy and after completion of investigation
LW.10/SI of Police filed Chargesheet against the accused.
3.Basing on the said Chargesheet, cognizance was taken for the 3 //Fair// offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 279 of IPC and copies of documents were furnished to the Accused on his appearance as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
4.The Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C, explaining to him in vernacular language, the substance of accusation levelled against him for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 279 of
IPC, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.
5.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P6 were marked. The evidence of the LW.1 was given up by the prosecution.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining to him in vernacular language, the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the evidence for defence was closed.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record.
The point that arises for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the
accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 279 of IPC beyond all
reasonable doubt?’
Point:
8. In order to establish the alleged offence, the prosecution has to prove that the Accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent 4 //Fair// manner and due to that reason, caused the death of the deceased. To support its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and in documentary evidence, Exs.P1 to P6 were marked at the behest of the prosecution. Ex.P1 is the Inquest report, Exs.P2, is the Post Mortem
Certificate, Ex.P3 is FIR, Ex.P4 is the report, Ex.P5 is the rough
Sketch, Ex.P6 is the MVI Certificate.
9.The undisputed fact in this case is that the Accused did drive the crime vehicle and dashed against cycle of Ravada Raju, he fell on the road and the said lorry back wheel was embarked into his right leg, as a result of which Ravada Raju right leg and thigh were crushed and died on the spot. The same was repeated and admitted by the Ld. Counsel for the defence during the course of his arguments as well. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-
A, 279 of IPC, what remains to be established is whether such Act was committed by the Accused in a rash or negligent manner.
10.During the course of his chief examination, the PW1 who is son of the deceased is admittedly not an eye witness, his evidence clearly reveals that he came to know about the accident only through a phone call from his brother. His testimony is therefore hearsay in nature in so far as the manner of the accident is concerned. Though his presence at the hospital and during the inquest is not disputed, his evidence does not advance the prosecution case regarding rash or negligent driving.
5 //Fair//
11.During the course of their chief examinations PWs.2, 3 & 8 are either relatives or neighbors of the deceased and their evidence is conflicted to the factum of death and participation in the inquest proceedings. They admittedly reached the hospital after receiving the information from others, their testimony do not disclose how the accident was occurred nor do they through light on the accident of the accused at the relevant time. Significantly the PW.3 admitted that he singed on inquest report at the police station which weakens the evidentiary value of inquest proceedings. Thus their evidence remains formal in nature and does not corroborate rashness or negligence.
12.During the course of his chief examination LW.8/PW.4 the Doctor who conducted the postmortem, opined that the death was due to crush injuries consistent with impact by a heavy vehicle. While medical evidence conclusively establishes the cause of death does not by itself establishes the manner of driving or culpable negligence importantly
PW.4 admitted in his cross examination that simple injuries could be caused by any other means, there is a chance of received crush injuries due to fell on the rock. Thereby introducing an element of doubt. It is trait law that medical evidence can corroborate but cannot substitute direct or circumstantial evidence of rashness.
13.During the course of chief examination of PW.5 & PW.9 the investigation officers candidly admitted several lapses, they do not 6 //Fair// examine the cleaner of the lorry, any independent public witnesses, nearby shop owners or the Hotel owner near those premises the accident allegedly occurred. Though they admitted that several public persons were present at the scene but no independent witnesses were examine by them, no CC footage was collected. Such omissions assume significance as they strike at the root of the fair investigation and create serious doubt regarding prosecution case.
14.During the course of chief examination of PW.6/Motor Vehicle
Inspector categorically stated that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. While his rules out mechanical failure, it does not positively establishes rashness or negligence. Ex.P5 Rough sketch also does not clearly indicates the point of impact, road width, positioning of the vehicles so as to infer negligent driving. Thus the documentary evidence lacks the necessary corroborative force to support the prosecution case.
15.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493 held that mere allegations of high speed does not constitute rash and negligent driving in Abdul Subhan Vs. State NCT of Delhi(2007) 14 SCC 602 it was reiterated that criminal negligence must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. In Rathnashalvan Vs.
State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 the Apex Court emphasized that unless rashness or negligence is proved as a direct cause of death 7 //Fair// conviction U/sec.304-A IPC cannot be sustained. The principles laid down squarely apply to the facts of the present case.
16.On an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence this court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish rash or negligent driving beyond all reasonable doubt. The evidence on record suffers from the material inconsistency, absence of independent corroboration and the serious investigative lapses. The chain of circumstances is incomplete and does not unerringly point towards the guilt fo the Accused. Consequently the Accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt must necessarily ensure the benefit of doubt of the
Accused.
17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 279 of IPC and accordingly the Accused is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of
Judgment as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced by the prosecution, no order in such regard.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 5 th day of February, 2026.
Sd/- K.Ramesh
Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Yellamanchili.
8 //Fair//
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Complainant:
P.W.1: R.John, P.W.2: M.Chinna Dasu, P.W.3:U.Satti Babu P.W.4 :Dr.G.Janardhan, P.W.5:G.Kumar Babu, P.W.6:M.V.M Kasi Viswanath P.W.7:M.Dasu, P.W.8:Sadu Chakram P.W.9:V.Satyanarayana
For Accused:- Nil-
Exhibits Marked
For Petitioners:
Ex.P1 is the Inquest report, Ex.P2 is the Post Mortem Certificate, Ex.P3 is FIR, Ex.P4 is the report, Ex.P5 is the rough Sketch, Ex.P6 is the MVI Certificate.
For Accused:-Nil-
AJCJ-Cum-AJMFC/YLM. .
9 //Fair//
CALENDAR & JUDGMENT
CALENDAR CASE TRIED BY THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE- CUM-
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT
YELLAMANCHILI
Date of Offence:19-04-2017 Date of Report or Complaint:19-04-2017 Date of apprehension of Accused:Sec 41(A) Cr.PC Date of accused released on bail:--- Date of Commencement of Trial;29-07-2019 Date of Closure of trial:20-01-2026 Date of sentence or order of Court:05-02-2026 Explanation for Delay & Remarks:Delay due to non-production of witnesses by the prosecution
C.C.No.357/2017 Calendar Case No. :
The State represented by Sub Name & Address of complainant: Inspector of Police, Payakaraopeta : Police Station. Name and address of accused :Jilakarra Venkata Ramana, S/o.Late Veeranna, 48 years, R/o.Vippanapadu Village, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. Driver of Goods carriage HMV lorry bearing No.AP 37 W 5899. Section of law:for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, 279 of IPC Finding of Court : Accused is found not guilty.
Sentence or Order of the Court : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A, 279 of IPC and accordingly the Accused is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Accused if any shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment as provided U/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced by the prosecution, no order in such regard.
Sd/- K.Ramesh
Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Yellamanchili. Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
10 //Fair//