1SC.No.99 of 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
NIZAMABAD
PRESENT: SMT.K.SAI RAMA DEVI,
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
FRIDAY THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
S.C. No.99 of 2020
Name(s) & particulars of Gangarapu Ramanujulu Reddy@ accused person (s) Thirupathi Reddy S/o Mavireddy, 26 years, Reddies, Private Employee, R/o Gaddamvari Palem village, Chilkanpally Mandal, Kadapa District
Charge (s) Under Section 304-II IPC in Cr.No.165/2017 of P.S. Town V Nizamabad
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court Accused is found not guilty
Sentence or Order In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 304II IPC in Cr.No.165/2017 of P.S. Town V Nizamabad. Accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.
Counsel for prosecution Public Prosecutor, Principal District
Judge’s Court, Nizamabad
Counsel for defence Sri G.V.Krupakar Reddy, Advocate, Nizamabad 2SC.No.99 of 2020
This case came up before me on25.02.2021 forfinal hearing in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.V.Krupakar Reddy, Counsel for accused, having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This Sessions Case arises out of Crime No. 165 of 2017 on the file of V Town Police Station, Nizamabad, registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-II
I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge-sheet filed by L.W.24-T.Sreenath Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police,
Nizamabad North Rural Circle is that on 30.12.2017 at about 12.30 hours, P.W.1 lodged report stating that her husband is working as outsourcee employee in the Municipal Corporation,
Nizamabad, and that in the morning hours he left home to attend duty. She came to know through P.W.2, who is her father-in-law that while her husband was working at Quilla Water
Filter bed, Nizamabad, an explosion took place, in which her husband died. P.W.2 was informed about the death by P.W.6.
Immediately, herself along with her family members rushed to the Water Filter Bed at Quilla Ramalayam temple, Nizamabad and found the dead body of her husband spread in pieces in the area surrounding the Water Filter bed. There, she came to know that a plastic tin containing some chemical liquid resin belonging 3SC.No.99 of 2020 to L & T Company exploded, resulting in the death of her husband. The employees of the Municipal and L & T Company employees knowing that chemical tin would endanger the life of her husband, and handed over the tin to him.
3(a). Based on the above report, L.W.22-Sri. T. Srihari, Sub
Inspector of Police, V Town Police Station, Nizamabad, registered a case in Crime No.165 of 2017 for the offence punishable under
Section 304-II I.P.C. against the accused and issued Ex.P13- express FIR. Thereafter, P.W.11, Circle Inspector of Police,
Nizamabad North Rural, took up the investigation, and during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, observed the same in the presence of panch witnesses/L.W.16-
Kothapeta Gopal and L.W.17-Sugandham Santhosh and conducted Ex.P14-scene of offence and seizure panchanama and seized blood samples with cotton gauge, gauge sample, small blue colour chemical plastic can pieces, sample earth from the place of explosion, control earth, partially two cloth burnt pieces with blood stains, partial torn burnt shirt piece with blood stains and held Ex.P17-inquest on the dead body of the deceased, got
Ex.P16-12 photographs of the scene of offence and the dead body pieces taken, assembled all the body pieces of the deceased and sent them to Government General Hospital,
Nizamabad, for post mortem examination. L.W.20-Dr. B.V.Naga
Mohan Rao, held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased 4SC.No.99 of 2020 and preserved the pieces of skin and muscle taken from the body and femur bone of the deceased, for sending them for chemical analysis. Thereafter, P.W.11 handed over the dead body of the deceased to his blood relatives. He sent the skin tissues and femur bone to FSL, Hyderabad, for expert opinion.
L.W.20-Dr. B.V. Naga Mohan Rao, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued Ex.P18-post mortem report, opining that the death of the deceased was due to “multiple injuries as a result of blasting effect, nature can be detected by chemical examination”.
(b) On 11.01.2018, P.W.11 addressed Ex.P21-letter to the
Project Manager L & T Company to furnish information regarding the Filter Bed work and the employees who were working under their control near the Filter Bed. On 18.01.2018, he addressed
Ex.P22-letter to the Public Works Department, to furnish information, and the in-charge Assistant Engineer, stated that there were no workers or employees working officially at the
Water Filter bed under the control of L&T company. Thereafter, on 20.01.2018, P.W.11 again visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of L.Ws.12-Syed Inayath Kareem,
L.W.13-M.A. Rasheed, L.W.14-Boi Kummari Satish and L.W.15-
Meraka Narayana Murthy @ Nanaji.
(c) On 08.08.2018, at about 09-00 hours, the accused surrendered before P.W.11. Thereupon, P.W.11 secured the 5SC.No.99 of 2020 presence of mediators L.W.18-Erra Ramchandhar and L.W.19-
Vakeel Devendhar and in their presence, when the accused confessed that while opening the ECMALAN/SOLVENT RESIN liquid tin cap, explosion took place and in the explosion, himself and the deceased sustained severe injuries and that he was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment, he recorded Ex.P23-confessional statement of the accused.
Thereupon, he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. After completing the investigation, P.W.11 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under
Section 304-II I.P.C.
4. The case was taken on file by the II Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, for the offence punishable
under Section 304-II I.P.C. against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents, as required under
Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to him. Since the offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C. is triable by the Court of
Sessions, the case was committed to this Court.
5. On hearing both the sides, my learned predecessor Judge took cognizance of the case. A charge was framed charge under
Section 304-II I.P.C. against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6SC.No.99 of 2020
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined
P.Ws.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P23.
7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence that appeared against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but he did not adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for defence/accused.
9. Now the point that arises for consideration is:-
Whether the prosecution could prove the charge
under section 304-II I.P.C. against the accused beyond all
reasonable doubt?
P O I N T:-
10. The case of the prosecution is that the accused who is a
Private employee, working under the control of Project Manager in the Municipal Corporation knowing well that
ECMALAN/SOLVENT CHEMICAL, LIQUID RESIN tin would explode, yet handed over the same to the deceased, and when the deceased opened the same, it exploded resulting in the death of the deceased, and by such act of negligence, the 7SC.No.99 of 2020 accused committed an offence punishable under Section 304-II
I.P.C.
11. The prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he is charged examined P.Ws.1 to 11.
Therefore, this Court will proceed to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether the prosecution could establish its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
12.P.W.1 is the de facto complainant. She is the wife of the deceased. She stated that the deceased was working as
Operator in Qilla Water Filter bed, and that on 30.12.2017, the deceased went to attend to his work, and that at about 12.00 noon, she received phone call from P.W.2 stating that the deceased died in chemical explosion at his work place.
Immediately, she went to the Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and by the time she reached the hospital, the dead body of the deceased was brought in pieces. She stated that the police obtained her signature on an application and that Ex.P1 is her signature, but she does not know the contents of the application.
She stated that the police neither examined her nor recorded her statement. She was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, she denied the 8SC.No.99 of 2020 suggestion that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
13. P.W.2 who is the adoptive father of the deceased stated that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and that the deceased died about three years back in a chemical explosion at his work place and that he does not know the cause of the explosion. He stated that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
14. P.W.3 who is the co-brother of deceased deposed that the deceased died about three years back and that he came to know that the deceased died in a chemical explosion at his work place.
He stated that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P4-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
15. P.W.4 who is the colleague of the deceased and the accused stated that he does not know the facts of the case. He stated that the police examined and recorded his statement, but he does not know the contents of the statement. He was 9SC.No.99 of 2020 declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated
before the police as in Ex.P5-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
16. P.W.5 who is a resident of Quilla Ramalayam, Nizamabad stated that she does not know the facts of the case. She stated that the police neither examined her nor recorded her statement.
She was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor, she denied the suggestion that she stated before the police as in Ex.P6-Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement.
17. P.W.6 who is working as Gardner in the Water Filter bed stated that he knows the accused and the deceased but does not know the facts of the case, and that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in
Ex.P7-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
18. P.W.7 who is working as Gardner and waters plants for
Haritha Haram project, stated that he knows the accused and the deceased, but does not know the fact of the case, and that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion 10SC.No.99 of 2020 that he stated before the police as in Ex.P8-Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement.
19. P.W.8 who is working as Pump Operator in Quilla Water
Filter bed stated that he knows the accused and the deceased, but does not know the facts of the case and that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated
before the police as in Ex.P9-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
20. P.W.9 who is working as Pump Operator at the Water Filter bed stated that he knows the accused and the deceased and that when the incident took place, he was in the room, and that on hearing explosion sound, he came out and saw flames and that he does not know the cause of the sound and flames. He stated that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.
He was declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross- examined by the Public Prosecutor, he denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.P10-Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement.
21. P.W.10 who is working as Pump Operator in Quilla Water
Filter bed stated that he knows the accused and the deceased, but does not know the facts of the case. He stated that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement. He was 11SC.No.99 of 2020 declared hostile by the prosecution and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that he stated
before the police as in Ex.P11-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
22. P.W.11 is the Investigating Officer. He deposed that based on Ex.P12-complaint given by P.W.1, L.W.22-Sub-Inspector of
Police, registered a case in Crime No.165 of 2017 for the offence under Section 304-II IPC and issued Ex.P13-FIR. On receiving express FIR, he took up investigation from the Sub Inspector
Police and rushed to the scene of offence and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and conducted Ex.P14-scene of offence panchanama, scene observation and seizure panchanama and
Ex.P17-inquest panchanama in the presence of L.W.16-K.Gopal and L.W.17-S.Santhosh respectively. He collected blood sample with cotton gauge, small blue colour chemical plastic can pieces, sample earth, controlled earth, two blood stained cloth pieces partially burnt, partially torn burnt shirt piece with blood stains.
Ex.P15 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. At the time of conducting inquest, he got Ex.P16-photographs taken of the scene of offence, dead body pieces by PC 290. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 to 5. He sent the dead body pieces of the deceased to the Government General Hospital,
Nizamabad for post mortem examination through PC No.290.
L.W.20-Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao conducted autopsy over the dead body pieces of the deceased and preserved pieces of skin 12SC.No.99 of 2020 and muscles collected from body and femur bone for chemical analysis. He handed over the dead body of the deceased to his blood relatives for final rites. He again visited the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of L.W.6-
Pudari Kiran, P.W.6 to 8 respectively. He further deposed that in the explosion caused while opening the ECMALAN/SOLVENT
RESIN LIQUID TIN CAP along with the deceased, the accused also sustained injuries. On 31.12.2017, he again visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of P.Ws.9 and 10.
On 10.1.2018, he again visited the scene of offence and recorded the statements of L.Ws.12 to 15-Syed Inayat Kareem,
M.A.Rasheed, B.K.Satish, M.Narayana Murthy respectively. He sent the skin tissues and femur bone of the deceased to FSL,
Hyderabad. which were preserved by L.W.20 for chemical examination. L.W.20-Dr. B.V. Naga Mohan Rao opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to ‘MULTIPLE INJURIES
AS A RESULT OF BLASTING EFFECT, NATURE CAN BE DETECTED
BY CHEMICAL EXAMINATION”. Ex.P18 is the PME report, Ex.P19 is FSL report, Ex.P20 is the final opinion given by L.W.20-Dr.
B.V. Naga Mohan Rao. He further deposed that on 11.01.2018 he addressed letter to the Project Manager L & T Company requesting him to furnish the information regarding details of the employees to which L & T has addressed letter dated 11.01.2018, Ex.P21 is the letter dated 13.1.2018 addressed by L 13SC.No.99 of 2020 & T. He further deposed that on 18.1.2018, he addressed letter to the Public Works Department/AE/Incharge EE with a request to furnish the information to the questionnaires to which Public
Health Department has answered and sent Ex.P22-letter. He further deposed that on 08.08.2018, at about 9.00 a.m., the accused surrendered before him and he secured the presence of
L.W.18-Erra Ramchander and L.W.19-Vakil Devender and that when the accused in their presence confessed that he is responsible for the death of deceased and that he too received serious injuries in the explosion of ECMALAN/SOLVENT RESIN
LIQUID CAN along with the deceased when it was opened, and that he was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, he recorded his confession statement and effected his arrest at 12.00 noon and sent him to judicial remand. After his transfer
L.W.24-T.Sreenath Reddy, Circle Inspector of Police, took up investigation, collected Ex.P23-medical certificate, and laid charge sheet against the accused after completing the investigation.
23. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is evident that the deceased died in the explosion that occurred at the Quilla Water Filter bed, where the deceased was working as
Operator. Though P.W.11 deposed that based on the report given by P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, V Town Police
Station, Nizamabad registered Crime No. 165 of 2017 for the 14SC.No.99 of 2020 offence punishable under Section 304-II I.P.C., and thereupon, he conducted investigation and that during the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and conducted seizure panchanama and recorded the statements of the witnesses, and that the accused confessed that he is responsible for the causing of the explosion, resulting in the death of the deceased and the accused sustaining injuries in the said explosion, but P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased though admitted her signature on the report, denied the contents of the same, and in fact, herself, P.W.2, who is the adoptive father of the deceased deposed that they do not know the cause of explosion, P.W.3, the co-brother of the deceased stated that he came to know that the deceased died in an explosion at his work place. They did not support the case of the prosecution, and they stated that the police neither examined them nor recorded their statement and denied the suggestion of the Public
Prosecutor that they stated before the police as in Exs. P2, P3 and P4-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.Ws. 4 to 8 and 10, who were working along with the accused and the deceased stated that they do not know the facts of the case. P.W.9 stated that while he was in the room, he heard sound and when he came out he saw flames, but he does not know the reason for the sound and flames. P.W. 4 though stated that the police examined and recorded his statement, but he denied that he 15SC.No.99 of 2020 stated before the police as in Ex.P5-Section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement. P.Ws. 5 to 10 stated that the police neither examined them nor recorded their statements and denied the suggestion that they stated before the police as in Exs.P6 to
P11-Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Thus it is evident that all the material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case that the accused by his negligent act was responsible for the explosion, resulting in the death of the deceased. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 304-
II I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt.
24. In the result, accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 304-II I.P.C. in Cr. No.165/2017 of P.S. Town V
Nizamabad. Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.
Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Surety bonds of surety persons and bail bonds of accused, if any, shall remain in force for a period of six months and shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months period as contemplated under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of February, 2021.
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NIZAMABAD.
16SC.No.99 of 2020
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
Witnesses examined for prosecution:-
PW1 Smt.Nayakwad Ushasri, is the de facto complainant, who turned hostile.
PW2 Sri Nayakwad Narsaiah, is the adopted father of deceased, who turned hostile.
PW3 Sri Kulchari Santhosh, is the co-brother of deceased, who turned hostile. PW4 Sri Palle Balaiah, is the eyewitness, who turned hostile.
PW5 Smt. Kolapala Hima Bindu, is the witness, who turned hostile
PW6 Sri Buddam Laxman, is the eyewitness, who turned hostile.
PW7 Sri Kothapeta Gopal, is the witness, who turned hostile
PW8 Sri Kolapal Rathan, is the witness, who turned hostile PW9 Sri Chintakayala Rahul, is the witness, who turned hostile
PW10 Sri Mohammad Nayyar Hussain, is the witness and shifted injured to hospital, turned hostile PW11 Sri N.Buchaiah, Circle Inspector of Police, IT Cell, Hyderabad, is the investigating officer
Witnesses examined for defence:- NIL
Exhibits marked for prosecution:-
Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on complaint
Ex.P2 to 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws.1 to 10 P11 : Ex.P12:Complaint dated 30.12.2017
Ex.P13:FIR dated 30.12.2017
Ex.P14:Scene of offence-cum-recovery panchanama dated 30.12.2017
Ex.P15:Rough sketch
Ex.P16Photographs (12) Ex.P17Inquest panchanama dated 30.12.2017 17SC.No.99 of 2020
Ex.P18PME report dated 30.12.2017 Ex.P19FSL report dated 28.02.2019
Ex.P20Final opinion report
Ex.P21Letter by L&T Constructions Ex.P22Letter by EE, Public Health Division, Nizamabad
Ex.P23Wound of medical certificate dated 12.1.2018 of accused
Exhibits marked for defence:- NIL
Material Objects marked for prosecution:- NIL
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
NIZAMABAD
Read by:-
Compared by:-