Page 1 CC No. 30 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: UTNOOR
ADILABAD DISTRICT
PRESENT:- P.B. KIRAN KUMAR
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, BOATH
FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UTNOOR.
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019.
CC.No. 30 of 2016
Between :
The State of Telangana rep., through P.S. Indervelly.
….. Complainant.
// A n d //
A1 Murmere Parameshwar S/o Ramchander Aged 19 years, occ:Coolie, r/o Dasnapur Village, Indervelly Mandal, Adilabad District.
A2 Potte Ramesh S/o Bapurao, Aged 40 years, Occ:Owner of tractor, R/o Dasnapur village,
Indervelly Mandal, Adilabad District. ….. Accused No.1 & 2
This case is coming before me for fnal hearing on 10-10-2019 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri B. Jagan, Counsel
for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this
court made the following :-
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Indervelly fled a charge sheet against the accused for the ofence punishable under
Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and section 181 of
Motor Vehicles Act against A1 (for short M.V. Act) and section 180 of
M.V. Act against A2.
2. Brief history of the case as emanated from the prosecution is that:-
The complainant-Potpade Datta came to the police station and gave a Telugu written report stating that on 31.10.2015 at 1900 hours,
A1 drove the tractor bearing No.AP01-AA-8645 with trolley No.AP01G-
Page 1 of 17
Page 2 CC No. 30 of 2016 6214 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to his daughter while she was going to Hanuman Mandir area for playing, due to which, she received bleeding head injuries and died on the spot and as such, he requested to take necessary action.
Basing on the above said report, LW13/SI of Police, registered a case in Cr.No. 139 of 2015 under section 304-A of IPC and issued FIR.
During the course of investigation, LW13/SI of Police examined and recorded the statement of the complainant, visited the scene of ofence situated at Dasnapur village, secured two mediators, photographed the scene of ofence with the help of photographer, drafted CDF along with rough sketch of scene of ofence in their presence and shifted the dead body of the deceased to Government
Hospital, Utnoor. Later, LW13/SI of Police visited the Government
Hospital, examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses, secured two mediators and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence and later the dead body was handed over to Medical ofcer for autopsy. Thereafter, LW13/SI of Police also sent a requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection of crime vehicle. On 03.11.2015 at 0830 hours, A1 and A2 came to police station and surrendered before LW13/SI of Police and on interrogation the accused persons voluntarily confessed to have committed the ofence, efected their arrests by issuing arrest memos and after obtaining sufcient sureties they were released on bail. After collecting MVI report and PME report and after completion of investigation, LW13/SI of Police fled charge sheet for the ofenceunder section 304-A of IPC and section 181 of M.V. Act against A1 and section 180 of M.V. Act against A2.
Page 2 of 17
Page 3 CC No. 30 of 2016
3.The case was taken on fle for the ofence under Section 304-A of
IPC and section 181 of M.V. Act against A1 and Section 180 of M.V. Act against A2.
4.After appearance of the accused persons, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the accused persons as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused persons under section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation levelled for the ofence under section 304-A of IPC and 181 of M.V. Act against A1 and also for the ofence under section 180 of M.V. Act against A2, for which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P1 to P11.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating evidence available against the accused persons, for which they denied the same. None were examined on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D1 to D5 are marked.
7.Heard the arguments on both sides.
8.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?
9.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has to establish that the accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased girl by doing any
Page 3 of 17
Page 4 CC No. 30 of 2016 rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and accused
No.2 knowingly allowed the accused No.1 to drive the crime vehicle without having any valid licence.
10. Point:- It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.10.2015 at 1900 hours, when the deceased was proceeding to Hanuman Mandir at
Dasnapur village for playing, then A1 drove the crime vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No.AP01-AA-8645 with trolley No.AP01G-6214 without having driving licence in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased, resulting the deceased sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot and A2 having knowledge that A1 is not having valid licence allowed him to drove the said crime vehicle.
11.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11.
PW1 deposed that about three years three months back, when deceased was proceeding towards Hanuman temple, Dasnapur, A1 came on a tractor and dashed the deceased, due to which, she died on the spot. He further deposed that one Sarpanch went to the hospital and brought the dead body of the deceased to his home. Though PW1 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to disbelieve his earlier version with regard to death of the deceased in the road accident.
12.PW2 also deposed that he came to know about the accident and he went to the scene of ofence and observed the deceased and tractor. PW4 who is the mother of the deceased also deposed that about three years back when she was at her house at evening hours, the deceased went outside to play with her friends and later PW5 informed her that one tractor dashed the deceased in opposite
Page 4 of 17
Page 5 CC No. 30 of 2016 direction and tyre of the said tractor ran over the body of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died on the spot, then she immediately rushed there and observed the dead body of the deceased. PW5 who is said to be eyewitness to the accident also deposed that A1 drove the tractor with high speed and dashed to the tractor, due to which the deceased died on the spot. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve their versions about the death of the deceased in the road accident.
13.PW6 who is one of the panch witnesses for inquest deposed that police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence under Ex.P4. The evidence of PW7 shows that he took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased at Dasnapur village and handed over the photographs along with CD to the police. Though
Pws.6 and 7 were cross-examined nothing was elicited to disbelieve their earlier testimonies about the death of the deceased. Hence, the evidence of Pws.6 and 7 also establishes that the deceased died in the road accident.
14.PW8 who is the medical ofcer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased deposed about conducting of autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and gave her report under Ex.P4 opining that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to massive intracranial Hemorrhage (extradural and subdural secondary to injury). Thus the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with Pws.6 and 7 coupled with PW8 clearly establishes that the deceased died in the road accident.
Page 5 of 17
Page 6 CC No. 30 of 2016
15.Now it is to be seen as to whether the prosecution could able to establish that the accused No.1 is responsible for the death of the deceased person. In order to prove the same, the prosecution mostly relied on the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 4 and 5 along with Pws.7 and 8 coupled with the evidence of PW11.
16.Coming to the evidence of PW1, who deposed that about three years three months back when the deceased was proceeding towards
Hanuman temple, Dasnapur, in the mean time, A1 came in a tractor and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot.
He further deposed that PW5 informed him about the accident. Thus the evidence of PW1 clearly shows that he is not the eyewitness to the incident. Whereas Pw2 clearly deposed that he do not know how the accident was happened and as such, his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution case.
17.PW4 who is the mother of the deceased girl deposed that PW5 came to her house and informed that one tractor dashed the deceased in opposite direction and tyre of the said tractor ran over the body of the deceased. She also deposed that she came to know that A1 drove the said tractor and caused the accident. Thus the evidence of PW4 shows that she is not the eyewitness to the incident but her evidence clearly shows that soon after the accident, PW5 informed her about the accident.
18.Coming to the evidence of PW5, who is said to be eyewitness to the incident and crucial witness in this case, deposed that on 31.10.2015 at 7.00 PM, when he was present at Hanuman Mandir,
Page 6 of 17
Page 7 CC No. 30 of 2016
Dasnapur, at that time, he saw A1 drove his tractor with high speed and dashed the deceased who was playing at the said Mandir and the tyre of the said tractor ran over the dead body of the deceased. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. He also identifed A1 as the person who is standing at the dock of the court hall and after the accident, A1 fed away from the spot. PW5 also stated about the tractor number as 6245 and trolley number as 8645.
19.In the cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say who were present at Hanuman temple and he was present at west side of the said Hanuman Temple and the scene of ofence is situated towards
Eastern side of the temple. He also admitted that the said road where the accident took place is a small road and any vehicle has to pass in the said road in a slow manner. He further admitted that the front side of the crime vehicle dashed the deceased and thereafter, back side tyre of the crime vehicle ran over the body of the deceased. He also admitted that at the time of incident it was not dark and he do not know whether A1 is having a licence or not. He clearly admitted that there are no previous disputes in between Pws.1, 4 and A1 and A2.
Thus the evidence of PW5 clearly shows that A1 drove the crime vehicle at high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot. Though the learned counsel for the accused elicited some contradictions, the same cannot falsifes the entire testimony of the evidence of PW5. But the said contradictions are minor in nature, they will not go to the root of the prosecution case and as such, the same can be ignored.
Page 7 of 17
Page 8 CC No. 30 of 2016
20.After scanning the evidence of Pws.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9, it reveals that PW1 clearly deposed that immediately after the accident, PW5 informed him about the accident. Even PW4 clearly deposed that PW5 informed her about the accident and immediately, she rushed to the spot and found that the deceased died on the spot and blood was oozing from her ears and nose and she came to know that A1 drove the crime vehicle. Thus the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 clearly shows that immediately after the accident, they came to know that A1 drove the crime vehicle and dashed to the deceased, resulting in her death.
Moreover, the evidence of PW5 who is eyewitness to the accident clearly identifed A1 as the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and dashed the deceased, causing her death.
21.At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that Pws.1 and 4 who are parents are interested witnesses and moreover, they are not eyewitnesses to the accident and as such their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. He also contended that PW5 is the relative of Pws.1 and 4 and interested witness in this case and further there is no corroboration with the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 and PW5 as to whether the deceased was playing at the scene of ofence or proceeding to play at the scene of ofence. He further contended that PW5 clearly admitted that the road is narrow and any vehicle should pass through the said road in a slow manner and at the time of accident it was also not dark and as such, the question of driving the crime vehicle at high speed does not arise. He also contended that PW5 is not at all eyewitness to the incident and in view of relationship between him and Pws.1 and 4, he deposed against A1 to
Page 8 of 17
Page 9 CC No. 30 of 2016 support Pws.1 and 4 in order to claim compensation for the death of the deceased. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution failed to establish any rash or negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and also pointed out that PW5 also did not state anything about rashness or negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the accused persons that Pws.2 and 3 who are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident did not state anything about the case and even Pws.9 and 10 who are said to be panch witnesses for scene of ofence also not supported the prosecution case and as such, it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused persons shall be given beneft of doubt leading to their acquittal. Hence, he prayed this court to acquit the accused persons.
22.It is not in dispute that Pws.1 and 4 are parents of the deceased girl and they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. But their evidence clearly shows that A1 drove the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. Moreover, it is to be noted that they clearly deposed that they came to know about the accident through PW5 only. Generally, no parents or relatives of the deceased person would come forward to foist a false case against the innocent person and they always want the real culprit to be punished in accordance with law. Further, it is clearly admitted in the evidence of PW5 that there are no previous disputes between the accused persons and PW1 and PW2 to implicate the the accused in this case. Thus, viewed from any angle, nothing was elicited by the learned defence counsel from the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 that Pws.1 and 4 along with PW5 falsely implicated A1 in this case.
Page 9 of 17
Page 10 CC No. 30 of 2016
23.Further, a perusal of the evidence of PW5, who is said to be eyewitness to the accident clearly stated that A1 drove the crime vehicle with high speed and dashed to the deceased. It is to noted that
PW5 clearly explained how the accident occurred in the cross- examination by stating that initially crime vehicle dashed to the deceased and after that back side tyre of the crime vehicle ran over the dead body of the deceased. The said above admission elicited in the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel clearly strengthens the version of PW5 about his presence at the scene of ofence.
Moreover, PW5 admitted in the cross-examination that at the time of accident it was not dark night, which also strengthens the evidence of
PW5 that he has seen A1 while driving the crime vehicle and caused the accident. It is also to be noted that though PW5 admitted that PW4 is his relative, it does not mean that he is interested witness and when his evidence is clear, cogent, convincing and reliable with regard to the accident, the same cannot be ignored. Moroever, as discussed supra, no kith and kin of the deceased or relatives tries to implicate an innocent person for the death of their closed one and they will always see that the real culprit who is the responsible for the death of their closed ones be punished. In this case also, there is no iota of doubt to disbelieve the testimony of PW5 whose evidence is trustworthy and also repose confdence in the mind of the court to believe that A1 was driving the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and caused the accident. Hence, the contention of the learned defence counsel that
PW5 is interested witness is untenable.
24.The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the prosecution failed to prove the rashness or negligent driving of the
Page 10 of 17
Page 11 CC No. 30 of 2016 crime vehicle by its driver at the time of the accident. He also pointed out that PW5 clearly admitted that the road where the accident occurred is a narrow one and any vehicle has to pass in the said road in a slow manner and as such, the question of driving the vehicle at high speed or in a rash or negligent manner does not arise. As seen from the evidence of PW5 he clearly deposed that A1 drove the crime vehicle with high speed and dashed the deceased. No doubt, it is true
PW5 himself admitted that the scene of ofence where the accident occurred is a small road and any vehicle has to slow down to pass the said road. But the said admission made by PW5 itself shows that a duty is cast upon the driver to be more cautious and vigilgent while driving at that place, more particularly, when the vehicle is approaching the locality of the village as there is every likelihood of crossing the road by the villagers. But, as seen from the evidence of
PW5, the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., A1 was not cautious enough and drove the vehicle with high speed and caused the accident, which itself shows the negligent act of the accused. It is not out of place to mention here that if A1 was more vigilant, there is every possibility of avoiding the accident. Further, it is to be noted from the evidence of
PW5 that the front portion of crime vehicle dashed to the deceased and later back side tyre of the vehicle ran over the deceased, which itself shows that A1 was driving with high speed and driving at a high speed near the inhabitants of village amounts to gross negligence on the part of the driver and as such, this court is of the considered view that due to sheer negligent driving of A1, the accident occurred causing the death of the deceased. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons on this aspect need not given much importance.
Page 11 of 17
Page 12 CC No. 30 of 2016
25.The learned defence counsel further argued that the panch witnesses for scene of ofence has not supported the prosecution case and as such, the prosecution failed to establish the scene of ofence and the same is also fatal to the prosecution case. Though PW9 did not state anything about conducting of panchanama at the scene of ofence, but he clearly stated that he went to Hanuman Temple, at
Dasnapur and there police obtained his signatures, which itself shows that the police obtained the signatures of PW9 at the scene of ofence after conducting panchanama. Moreover, Pws.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 clearly deposed that the accident took place near Hanuman Temple, Dasnapur.
Further PW7 deposed that police called him to Dasnapur village to take photographs and accordingly, he went to Dasnapur village, and took the photographs of the dead body of the deceased near Hanuman temple, Dasnapur village, which also supports the accident occurred near Hanuman Temple, Dasnapur which is the scene of ofence. In view of categorical testimonies of Pws1, 2, 4 and 7 coupled with the evidence of Pws.9 and 11, this court do not fnd any doubt to hold that the prosecution has established the scene of ofence where the accident occurred and as such, the above said contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons is also no way helpful to them.
26.PW11 who is the investigating ofcer, deposed about lodging of
Ex.P1 by PW1, registering of crime and issuance of FIR, examination of the witnesses and also conducting of CDF, inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the mediators and also taking of photographs of the scene and also dead body of the deceased with the help of photographer and sending of dead body to the hospital for
Page 12 of 17
Page 13 CC No. 30 of 2016 postmortem examination. He also deposed that accused persons surrendered before him and voluntarily confessed to have committed the ofence and after collecting Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report under
Ex.P11 and other relevant documents, he fled charge sheet against the accused.
27.In the cross-examination, PW11 admitted that he has not mentioned the width of the road in the rough sketch and also not shown the crime vehicle and also dead body of the deceased in the rough sketch. He also admitted that the deceased girl was crossing the road at the time of accident for playing but not playing at that time.
Though PW11 admitted that he has not mentioned the width of road and also not shown the dead body and crime vehicle in the rough sketch, but as discussed supra, PW5 clearly admitted in his cross- examination that the road is a narrow one and after scanning his evidence, this court is of the considered view that A1 drove the crime vehicle with high speed without any caution and due to his sheer negligence, the accident occurred and as such, the said admission of
PW11 will not go to the root of the prosecution to disbelieve its entire case. Further, a perusal of Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report vide Ex.P7, which was marked through the Investigating ofcer also shows that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.
28.In view of foregoing discussion, though there are minor discrepancies in the oral evidence of Pws.1, 4 and 5, it cannot be said that the same is fatal to the prosecution case, moreover, when the witnesses are examined after a long time from the date of accident,
Page 13 of 17
Page 14 CC No. 30 of 2016 such minor discrepancies are bound to occur and the court can ignore those discrepancies when the witnesses are illiterate and rustic villagers and when their evidence is convincing and inspiring the confdence in the mind of the court. Further, when the evidence of
Pws.1, 4, 5 and 7 are cogent, convincing and trustworthy about the place of accident and when the evidence of PW5 is clear and reliable about driving of crime vehicle by A1 with high speed and dashing the deceased, resulting the death of the deceased on the spot, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of Pw5 along with the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 coupled with the evidence of Pws.8 and 11 have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence is reliable and trustworthy and there is no iota of doubt to disbelieve their versions.
29.But in view of the above discussion, it is to be noted that there is no evidence to show that A1 was not having any driving licence to drive the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and A2 gave his tractor along with trolley to A1 knowingly that A1 is not having driving licence to drive the same. Hence, it can be held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 for the ofence under section 181 of M.V. Act and also failed to guilt of the accused No.2 for the ofence under section 180 of M.V. Act.
30.Moreover, it is pertinent to note here that when A1 along with A2 was asked whether he wanted to say anything about the case during the examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, he simply gave his reply as ‘No’. When the accused No.1 failed to state anything about the incriminating material available against him, an
Page 14 of 17
Page 15 CC No. 30 of 2016 adverse inference can be drawn under section 106 of Indian Evidence
Act that the accused No.1 drove the crime vehicle on the said date and caused the accident.
31.In view of above discussion and on careful scrutiny of evidence of
Pws.1, 4, 5 and 7 along with PW11 and in the light of recitals of Exs.P1 to P9, it is held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the accused No.1 who drove the crime vehicle on the date of the accident and caused the accident by driving the same with high speed and as such, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused No.1 for the ofence punishable under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
But the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 for the ofence under section 181 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt and also failed to prove that the accused No.2 for the ofence under section 180 of M.V. Act beyond all reasonable doubt.
32.In the result, A1 is found guilty for the ofence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC and he is accordingly, convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C., but he is found not guilty for the ofence punishable under section 181 of M.V. Act and he is accordingly acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C., and A2 is found not guilty for the ofence under section 180 of M.V. Act and he is accordingly acquitted under section 255(1) Cr.P.C.
Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 24th day of October, 2019.
FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
UTNOOR
Page 15 of 17
Page 16 CC No. 30 of 2016
33.When the accused questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed explaining the fnding arrived at by the court, the accused pleaded not guilty and stated that he is having old aged parents and he married recently and he is the only person to look after his old aged parents and wife. Moreover, he stated that he is the only bread winner of the entire family and as such prayed this court to show mercy by taking lenient view in imposing the sentence. After hearing the accused and after considering the facts and circumstances and nature of the ofence, this court do not fnd any reasons to show mercy by taking lenient view and in view of the settled principle of law that the benevolent provisions of Probation of Ofenders Act shall not apply to accident cases, this court is not inclined to apply the provisions of
Probation of Ofenders Act to this case. Accordingly, A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fne of Rs. 1000/- (Rupees One thousand only). In default in payment of fne, A1 has to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused
No.1 shall be given set of under section 428 of Criminal Procedure
Code.
Typed in my laptop directly, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 24th day of October, 2019
FAC. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
UTNOOR
Page 16 of 17
Page 17 CC No. 30 of 2016
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW1: Sri P.Datta, Defacto-Complainant. - NIL - PW2: Sri P.Mathu, Eyewitness. PW3: Sri P.Gynaneshwar, Eyewitness. PW4: Sri P.Anasuya Bai, Mother of the deceased. PW5: Sri P.Gangaram Eye witness. PW6: Sri P.Vittal, Panch for inquest. PW7: Sri K.Ashwin, Photographer. PW8: Dr.Rajyalaxmi, Conducted PME PW9: Sri M.Nagesh, Panch for CDF PW10: Sri G.Yeshwanath, Panch for CDF. PW11: Sri N.Srinivas, Investigating ofcer.
EXHIBITS MARKED.
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1: report by PW1 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC +statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Inquest report Ex.P5: Photographs along with CD Ex.P6: PME report. Ex.P7: Signature of PW9 on CDF Ex.P8: Signature of PW10 on CDF. Ex.P9: FIR. Ex.P10: CDF Panchanama. Ex.P11: MVI Report.
For Defence:.
Ex.D1 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4 Ex.D2 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5 Ex.D3 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5. Ex.D4 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5. Ex.D5 Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5.
FAC: JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, UTNOOR
Page 17 of 17