IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI.
Present: Sri K.Venkata Narayana Reddy,B.Sc.,B.L.,
Special Magistrate –cum- VI Additional Junior
Civil Judge, Tirupati.
On Tuesday, Twenty eighth (28 th ) day of May, Two thousand Nineteen.
Calendar Case No. 251/2018
State:
State represented by, Sub-Inspector of Police,
Traffic Police Station, Tirumala. ….. Complainant.
(Vs.)
P. Ramesh, Age 35 years, S/o P. Chandraiah, D.No. 14/80, Seshadra Nagar, Settipalli Panchayat, Karakambadi road, Tirupati, Chittoor District, Driver cum owner of Mahindra Bolora Max,
No.AP03-TD-2837. ... Accused.
This case is coming on 17.05.2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri. Venkata Narayan for the state and Sri. P. Suman, Advocate
for the accused and after hearing their arguments 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, Traffic Police Station, Tirumala filed the charge sheet in Crime No 17/2016 against the accused for the offences U/sec. 304-A, 279 IPC and
U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act.
2) The Allegations made in the charge sheet in brief are as follows: On 10.07.2016 at about 3.50 pm, near Monaswamy Matam, Tirumala, the accused being the driver of
Mahindra Bolora Max (Luggage vehicle) bearing No. AP03-TD-2837, parked the said vehicle in front of Avadutha Datha Peetam and putting any boulders to the tyres, and not applied hand break and get down from the vehicle, then the vehicle runs back and dashed one Tempo Travel bearing registration No. TN22-CD-7034, and again dashed against one female person by name M. Geetha who is standing in front of Monaswamy Matam and one
Yamaha motor cycle bearing registration No. AP03-AP-4155 which was parked near the
Monaswamy Matam. As a result the female person sustained scratches injuries on her both legs, Lacerated injury on the right thigh, blunt injury on her left side back of head,
Contd..2 bleeding injuries left elbow, and bleeding injury on the lower lip, fracture injury on the left knee, Lacerated injury on her right hand, the motor cycle is also got damaged, immediately the injured was shifted to Aswini hospital, Tirumala for treatment, the duty Medical Officer examined her and declared brought dead, on the complaint of C.Y. Satyanarayana a case in
Cr. No. 17/2016 was registered in Traffic police station, Tirumala, on 10.07.2016 at 5.00 pm, and took up investigation, the investigation officer examined 8 witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence and remove the crime vehicle from the scene of offence and released the crime vehicle, after inspection by motor vehicle inspector, the investigation officer conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 11.07.2016 from 7.00 am to 9.00 am and inquest report was drafted and obtained the signatures of panchayatdars in the inquest report, during the inquest the investigation officer examined three witnesses and their statements were recorded, the dead body of the deceased was forwarded to the S.V.
Medical College, Tirupati for autopsy. On 13.07.2016 at 11.00 am the accused was arrested, during the investigation it is found that the driving licence is not in force, the motor vehicle inspector examined the crime vehicle and issued motor vehicle inspection report, that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle, the
Medical Officer, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to heamarragic shock due to multiple wounds sustained, thus the accused is liable for punishment U/sec. 304-A, 279 IPC and
U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act.
3) On perusal of the record the charge sheet has been taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 279 IPC and U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act by IIAddl. Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and issued summons to the accused.
4) On appearance of the accused copies of documents have been supplied to him, the accused is examined U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C, he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) During the trial on behalf of the prosecution PWs 1 to 14 examined and exhibits
P1 to P16 and Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 marked.
6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/sec. 313
Cr.P.C. He denied the evidence of Prosecution witnesses and stated that he has not
Committed any offence and he has no witnesses to examine on his behalf.
7) Heard arguments on both sides.
8)Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?
Contd..3
9)C.Y. Satya Narayana (PW-1) resident of Chennai deposed that on 10.07.2016 himself, and his family members and relatives came to Mouna Swamy Matham, Tirumala for celebrating ear boring to his daughter Hanvitha, and the said function was conducted at 3.30 pm, on the same day evening hours himself and his family members and his relatives came out from Matham and were standing at the outside of the Matham and they were standing in front of Matham. One Mahendra Carriage jeep bearing No. AP03-TD- 3827came and hit against Mahendra jeep firstly and then it turns towards Matham and hit against Geetha, the said road is steeping up, the said jeep was stationed at a distance of twenty feet from their Mattam towards upwards. The said jeep came back and firstly hit against Mahindra jeep and the it turns towards mattam and hit against Geetha the said jeep caused damaged to one Yamaha motor cycle, no one was present in driving seat at the time of accident, the accident was occurred due to negligence as not taken care in keeping stones at the tyres and also not applied hand break while parking, one Ramesh is the driver of the said jeep, sometime of the accident the said Ramesh came to the scene of offence the said person is now present in the court hall, witness identify the accused as deriver of that crime vehicle, in the said accident, Geetha sustained injuries all over her body, they took her body to Aswini hospital, doctors declared she was brought dead, he gave report to the police under Ex.P1, police examined him and recorded his statement. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he has not observed whether the driver of crime vehicle applied hand break and put stones at the tyres of crime vehicle or not, he do not have personal knowledge whether driver of crime vehicle has taken care while parking his vehicle, date, place and time were intercalate in his report Ex.P1. There are no footpaths on either side of road where the accident occurred, a suggestion was put to the witness that one Mahindra jeep hit against alleged crime jeep and due to which accident occurred, and that there is no negligence on the part of accused in occurring accident, the suggestion is denied by the witness, the witness deposed that driver was not present in the alleged crime jeep at the time of accident, another suggestion was put to the witness that the accused is no way concerned with crime jeep, and that he foisted false case against accused for the purpose of insurance claim, and that at the instance of police he identified the accused as driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, the suggestion is denied by the witness, the witness deposed that he do not have prior acquaintance with the accused, and the police have not conducted the identification of accused.
10)M. Dharani (PW-2) resident of Chennai deposed that on 10.07.2016 at about 1.30 pm ear boring function was celebrated, at about 3.40 pm himself, his sister M. Geetha, came up from function hall, along with PW-1the said function was performed at
Mounaswamy Mattam, while PW-1 and his sister Geetha moving ahead to him, one
Mahindra Bolaro luggage vehicle was parked at Avadhutha Mattam, three buildings intervened between the said mttam and Avadhutha mattam, the said road is steeping up
Contd..4 towards Avadhutha mattam, while he was present in front of their function hall, the said
Mahindra bolero luggage vehicle was coming back and hit against tempo traveler vehicle and the said Mahindra bolero turned towards PW-1 and Geetha and later the Mahindra bolero vehicle hit against Geetha. Geetha sustained severe injuries and blood oozed from her nose and ears, she was shifted to Aswini hospital, Tirupati, the registration number of crime Mahindra bolero luggage vehicle is AP03-TD-2837, by the time of incident, no driver was present in the crime vehicle, after the accident one Ramesh came to crime vehicle and moved it to some distance from that place, if stones are kept on the back side of the wheels of crime vehicle, the crime vehicle will not come back and hit against tempo traveller and also hit against Geetha, he can identify the said Ramesh now the said Ramesh present before the court, police examined him. During the cross examination the witness deposed that during his examination he stated his statement in Tamil language, he do not know whether Sub-Inspector of police recorded his statement in Tamil or Telugu languages, the witness admitted that he have not stated before the police that after the accident one Ramesh came to crime Mahindra bolero carriage vehicle and move it to some distance from scene of offence, the witness deposed that he has not seen the accused at the scene of offence, and that he seen him at the hospital and the accused is not his relative and known person, a suggestion was put to the witness that even at the hospital also, the witness not seen the accused and that at the instance of the police to day he identified the accused as he was driver of the vehicle and that as the deceased Geetha is his relative, he is deposing falsehood to accommodate family members of deceased to claim insurance, the witness deposed that police have not conducted test identification parade of the accused, and that he have not seen whether stones were kept at the back side of the wheels of the crime vehicle or not, and he cannot read and write Telugu.
11)N. Raja (PW-3) resident of Tirupati deposed that on 10.07.2016 there was ear boring function of Satayanarayana daughter at Mounaswmy Matham, and that he was caterer to the said function, at about 3.00 pm the said function and lunch were completed, and at about 3.40 pm all the visitors came out from Mounaswamy matham and also brought out their luggage, he was present in front of Mounaswamy matham, there was
Mahindra bolora luggage vehicle bearing No. AP03-TD-2837 near Avadhutha Matham, there are three buildings in between Mounaswamy Matham and Avadhutha Matham and the said road is steeping up towards Avadhutha Matham, as no hand break applied and no stones were kept on the back side wheels of Mahindra bolero carriage vehicle, the said vehicle coming towards back and hit against tempo vehicle and later it turned towards
Mounaswamy Matham and hit against Geetha, the said Mahindra bolero carriage vehicle also hit against Yemaha motor vehicle. Due to the incident, Geetha sustained severe injuries, after the accident, driver of crime vehicle by name Ramesh moved the vehicle to some distance from scene of offence, later Geetha was shifted to Aswini hospital,
Tirumala, there doctors examined her and declared that she was brought dead, at the time
Contd..5 of incident no driver was present in the crime vehicle, police examined him, he can identify Ramesh now he is present before the court. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he can read and write Telugu language, what he stated to the police, they have written during 161 Cr.P.C examination, he do not know personally whether the accused was driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, witness volunteers as accused started the vehicle with the key available with him, after the accident and moved on the said place and as such he was under thought that he was driver of crime vehicle, a suggestion was put to the witness that he have not stated before the police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that after the accident the accused came to crime vehicle and moved it to some distance from the scene of offence, and that the accused started the vehicle with the key available with him, and after the accident and moved the vehicle from the said place and as such he was under thought that he was driver of the crime vehicle, and that he can identify the driver of the crime vehicle if he is shown to him, the suggestion is denied by the witness. The witness deposed that he came to know the name of driver of the vehicle through the neighbours from that place and that he cannot say names of those neighbours who informed the name of the drivers, the witness deposed that he know PW-1 and PW-2 are known to him, a suggestion was put to the witness and that he was not present at the time of alleged incident and that he have not seen the alleged driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident, the suggestion is denied by the witness, the witness deposed that the police not conducted test identification parade of the accused and that he have not seen personally whether stones were kept on the back side of the wheels of the crime vehicle or not, and that he have not seen personally whether hand break was applied to crime vehicle or not.
12)S. Mahindran (PW-4) resident of Chennai deposed that the deceased Geetha is his wife, on 10.07.2016 his wife Geetha attended ear boring function of PW-1s daughter, while he was present at Chennai, he received telephonic information from PW-1 that his wife
Geetha was hit by one Mahindra bolero luggage vehicle at Mounaswamy Matham,
Tirumala and in that incident his wife sustained severe injuries and died, later he came to
S.V. Medical College, Tirupati and took the dead body of his wife for cremation, police examined him. (The witness is not cross examined)
13) S. Ramalingam (PW-5) resident of Chennai deposed that on 11.07.2016 police held inquest over the dead body of Geetha commencing at 10.30 am and concluded at 1.00 pm during the inquest they arrived conclusion that Geetha died due to injuries sustained in goods vehicle accident, accordingly police prepared inquest report and he put his signature in the inquest report, under Ex.P2. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he cannot read and write Telugu Language, he cannot speak Telugu, a suggestion was put to the witness that he was not present at the time of alleged inquest, the suggestion is denied by the witness.
Contd..6
14) Ch. Srinivasulu (PW-6) resident of Doddapuram of Tirupati deposed that on 10.07.2016 in between 3.30 pm to 4.00 pm he came to Mounaswamy Matham and parked his Yemaha YBR bearing registration No. 4155 in front of Mounaswamy Matham
Kalyanamandapam, Tirumala while so one luggage vehicle was coming back from
Govinda Nilyaam Kalyanamandapam, Tirumala towards Mounaswamy Matham and it hit against sumo vehicle and later it turned towards Mounaswamy Matham and later it hit against one female person who attended ear boring function at Mounaswamy Matham, later the said carriage vehicle hit against his motor cycle, in that incident the said female person sustained severe injuries, he came to know that she died later he do not remember her name, before occurrence of the incident the said luggage vehicle is steep up, the said luggage vehicle ran over on the said female person, later driver of the said luggage vehicle came to crime vehicle and moved the same to distance, he can identify the said driver of crime vehicle, now he is present in the court hall, witness identified the said person as accused, his vehicle got badly damaged in that incident, he do not remember the registration number of the said luggage vehicle, police examined him. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he did not give any report to the police, two persons present nearby scene of offence, accused was driver of the said crime vehicle, a suggestion was put to the witness that he do not know anything about this case, and that the accused is not concerned with this case, and that he is deposing falsehood at the instance of police, the suggestion is denied by the witness, the witness deposed that after the incident first time he is seeing the accused in the court hall.
15) D. Rajasekhar Reddy (PW-7) resident of Tirupati deposed that on 11.07.2016 the police held inquest over the dead body of M. Geetha in the presence of himself, PW-4,
PW-5 and K. Vijay Kumar (LW-12) and got prepared inquest report Ex.P2, during the inquest they arrived conclusion that Geetha died due to injuries sustained in bolero accident, the inquest commenced at 7.00 am and concluded at 9.00 am, inquest was held at
Aswini Hospital mortuary, himself, PW-5 and LW-12 attended the said inquest, they put their signatures in the inquest report. (The witness is not cross examined)
16) K. S. Nagaraja Naik (PW-8) Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tirupati deposed that on 15.07.2016 he received requisition from the Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic police station,
Tirumala to inspect the crime vehicle bearing registration No. AP03-TD-2837, on the same day at about 3.00 pm he inspected the crime vehicle bearing registration No. AP03-TD- 2837, at the premises of Traffic police station, Tirumala it is a light goods vehicle of make
Mahindra Bolero Max Truck 2015 model. He found one damage on front left side mud guard, he put the vehicle to road test and found that the break system is efficient, he is of the opinion that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the said crime vehicle. Accordingly he issued a vehicle inspection report under Ex.P3. During the cross
Contd..7
Examination for accused the witness deposed that he do not know who shifted the crime vehicle from scene of offence, they could not assess defects in the vehicle, a suggestion was put to the witness that he issued motor vehicle inspection report to support the case of prosecution, the suggestion is denied by the witness.
17)Dr. K. Bhaskar (PW-9) S.V. Medical College, Tirupati deposed that on 11.07.2016 he received requisition from the Station House Officer, Traffic police station, Tirumala with a request to hold autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Mahindra Geetha, female, 47 years, on the same day he commenced postmortem examination at 10.15 am and concluded at 10.15 am, during the course of post mortem examination he found 9 ante mortem external wounds and 3 ante mortem internal wounds which he have mentioned in
Page No.2 of the post mortem certificate. He is of the opinion that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock due to multiple wounds sustained, he issued post mortem certificate under Ex.P4. (The witness is not cross examined)
18)Ch. Chandrasekhar (PW-10) resident of Tirupati and working as Manager in
Avadhutha Peetham, Tirumala deposed that on 10.07.2016 in between 3.30 pm and 4.15 pm while he was present inside of matham and he was observing the live CCTV footage, installed on front side of matham in the left corner facing towards road, 4 wheeler vehicle was parked in front of matham and one male person got down from driver seat of the said vehicle and one female person got down from other side of the vehicle and the same female person kept stone beneath the front and rear wheel, he also saw in live CCTV footage that after male person getting down from driving seat of the said vehicle, he closed the door and the said vehicle was moving towards back side and on observing the same the said male person tried to operate steering through window, the said road is steeping up towards their matham, on seeing the same he came out from the Matham, and there is no four wheeler near their matham, after 10 minutes he found flower pots, one two wheeler were damaged two wheeler is situated in front of Mounaswamy Matham, he came to know one female person after sustaining injuries, she was expired, he do not know who moved the crime vehicle from scene of offence, the registration number of the crime vehicle is
AP03-TD-2837, he can identify the male person who got down from four wheeler nearby their matham, the said CCTV footage is not available in their office, and that CCTV footages are saves one month only, police examined him. (The witness is not cross examined)
19)C. Krishna (PW-11) resident of Tirumala and native of Yamanuru of Karnataka
State and working as office boy in Mounaswamy Matham, Tirumala deposed that Geetha and her family members came to Tirumala for celebrating ear boring ceremony on 10.07.2016 after completing ear boring ceremony, Geetha and her family members check out the room and they came out from their matham, at about 3.50 am while he was present
Contd..8 in front of Mounaswamy Matham, Tirumala, one Mahindra Bolero luggage vehicle was running back from Avadhutha Dhatta Peetham towards down wards and hit against tempo traveler, due to which the said bolero luggage vehicle turned towards their Matham and hit against Geetha who was standing in front of Matham and thereafter the said vehicle hit against motor cycle, due to which the said Geetha sustained bleeding injuries, and she was shifted to Aswini Hospital, Tirumala, later he came to know that the said Geetha died, the registration number of Bolero luggage vehicle is AP03-TD-2837, the road leads from
Avadhutha Dhata Peetham to Mounaswamy Matham is in down gradient, the said accident might have been occurred due to not applying hand break, the said bolero vehicle belongs to one Ramesh, he can identify him, now he is present in court hall, witness identified the accused as Ramesh, police examined him. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he do not know whether the accused is owner of crime vehicle, and he do not know the name of owner of crime vehicle, the witness deposed that he seen the accused while he was parking crime vehicle in front of Avadhutha Matham, at a distance of more than 100 feet, he has not witnessed while hand break was applying to crime vehicle, he do not know whether the driver of crime vehicle has taken any precautions or not, he do not have acquaintance with the accused, he is always available and present in Mounaswamy
Matham, Tirumala his monthly salary is above 5,500/- the Matham maintains attendance register of staff 24 hours he was present in Mounaswamy Matham ear boring ceremony was performed in their matham, a suggestion was put to the witness that ear boring function was performed in their matham and deposing falsehood to support their case, that he have not made witness the alleged incident and that he do not know anything about this case, and he is deposing falsehood and that the accused was not driver of crime vehicle at any point of time, the suggestion is denied by the witness.
20)N. Kumar (PW-12) resident of Tirumala and working as taxi driver deposed that on 10.07.2016 from 3.30 pm and 4.00 pm while he was present in front of Datha Peetham along with his taxi one person stopped his Mahindra bolero carriage vehicle bearing registration No. AP03-TD-2837 in front of Dhatha Peetham, driver of the said vehicle got down from the Bolero the said bolero carriage vehicle was roll down towards back side, the said road is stepping down from Dhatha peetham the said bolero carriage vehicle hit against tempo vehicle and also hit against one female person who was standing in front of
Mounaswamy Matham, Tirumala, due to which the said female person sustained severe injuries, they shifted injured into their jeep, and took to Aswini Hospital, Tirumala, doctors examined her and declared as brought dead, he can identify the driver of the said crime bolero carriage vehicle now he is present in the court hall, witness identified the accused as he was driver of bolero carriage vehicle, after the accident the accused moved the said crime vehicle from that place as driver of crime vehicle has not applied hand break and not kept the vehicle on gear while parking, incident occurred, police examined him. During the cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness deposed that he has not stated
Contd..9
before the police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that at the time of incident he was present
along with his vehicle in front of Dhatha Peetham along with taxi and that he parked his vehicle in parking place of Dhatha Peetham, the witness deposed that the distance between parking place of Dhatha Peetham and place where crime vehicle was stopped is 10 feet, the width of the road is below 20 feet, there are doors on both sides of crime vehicle, crime vehicle is covered with top, inside of crime vehicle is not visible as doors are closed, he has not seen the driver of vehicle applied hand break or kept the vehicle on gear, a suggestion was put to the witness that he have not stated before police in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that he can identify the driver of crime vehicle, if he was shown to him and that after the incident driver of said crime vehicle moved the same from the scene place and that he shifted the injured to Aswini hospital on his jeep for treatment, and that he learnt that doctors examined the injured and opined that she was brought dead, the witness deposed that he is an illiterate and he do not have personal knowledge whether the accused was driver or owner of crime vehicle, a suggestion was put to the witness that the accused was not driver of crime vehicle, and that at the instance of police, he is deposing falsehood, the suggestion is denied by the witness.
21)M. Suresh (PW-13) resident of Chennai deposed that on 09.10.2016 himself along with 10 family members came to Tirumala in his Tempo Traveler bearing No. TN22-CD- 7034 for ear boring ceremony on the next day after vacating the room he parked his tempo traveler near one Matham at parking place and he was waiting for family of C.Y.
Sathayanarayana, by that time, the driver of the bolero vehicle bearing No. AP03-TD-2837 parked the vehicle in front of opposite matham by that time he did not put any stone under the tyres due to which the bolero vehicle came in reverse and dashed against one tempo traveler again dashed against Geetha and one motor cycle due to which Geetha sustained grievous injuries on the face and chest, the injured was shifted to Aswini hospital, Tirumala in a jeep, on the way the injured Geetha was died he was examined by the police, he can identify the driver of bolero vehicle, the witness identified the accused present in the court as driver of bolero vehicle at the time of accident. During the cross examination on behalf of the accused, the witness deposed that he do not know to read and write Telugu, the SI of police examined him, he stated to the SI of police in Tamil language and he got translated the same into Telugu, the persons attended the function are the known persons to him and they came in his vehicle i.e., Geetha and his family members he never seen the accused after the year 2016 till today, the witness deposed that the accused is not his friend or his relative or his family member, a suggestion was put to the witness that the accused is not at all, the driver of the bolero vehicle on the date of accident and that he is deposing evidence at the request of police against the accused, the suggestion is denied by the witness. The witness deposed that he parking his vehicle in the distance of 20 feet in front of bolero vehicle, and in case of hill stations after parking his vehicle he put the stones behind and also in front of vehicle tyres, the witness deposed that
Contd..10 in general he do not put the stones behind or in front of the vehicle typres in case of normal place i.e., plain place, a suggestion was put to the witness that he is deposing false evidence at the request of police with intention to help the family members of the deceased.
22)K. Veeresh (PW-14) Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic police station, Tirumala deposed that on 10.07.2016 at about 5.00 pm while he was present in the police station he received written complaint from C.Y. Satyanarayana (PW-1) and basing on that complaint he registered a case in Cr. No. 17/2016 under Ex.P5, and examined C.Y. Satyanarayana and recorded his statement and thereafter went to Aswini Hopsital, Tirumala and secured the eye witnesses Manohar Dharani, N. Raja and recorded their statements. Due to head ache he could not conducted the inquest on the same day at about 6.00 pm he visited the scene of offence situated at Mounswamy matham, Tirumala and he examined the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch under Ex.P6, and secured the persons CH.
Srinivasulu, CH. Chadrasekhar, C. Krishnan, N. Kumar, M. Suresh examined them and recorded their statements, then he shifted the crime vehicle bearing registration No. AP03-
TD-2837 to the traffic police station, Tirumala, on 11.07.2016 at about 7.00 am he gave requisition to the medical officer Aswini hospital, Tirumala and received the dead body and conducted inquest over the dead of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars D.
Rajasekhar, S. Ramalingam, K. Vijay Kumarand thereafter sent the dead body to S.V.
Medical College, Tirupati for the purpose of post mortem examination on 11.07.2016, he secured the presence of S. Mahendra examined him and recorded his statement on 15.07.2016, he sent a requisition to the motor vehicle inspector to inspect the crime vehicle on the same day the motor vehicle inspector inspected the crime vehicle in the premises of traffic police station, Tirumala and issued report under Ex.P3, on 13.07.2016 at about 10.30 am the accused came to the police station and voluntarily confessed the offence and surrendered before him, the ascertain the particulars of the accused and accused stated that he is the driver –cum- owner of the crime vehicle and the accused produced the registration certificate, insurance certificate and the driving licence, but the driving licence was not in force as on the date of offence, then he arrested the accused and forwarded into judicial remand. During the cross examination the witness deposed that some of the witnesses shown in the charge sheet belongs to Chennai and some of the witnesses are not living in
Karakambadi of Tirupati, the witness admitted that he do not know to read and speak Tamil language, a suggestion was put to the witness that he could not understand Tamil language, the suggestion is denied by the witness and stated that he can understand Tamil language to some extent, the witness deposed that the witnesses shown in the charge sheet were living at Chennai and spoken in English to some extent and that he did not mentioned in the charge sheet or in the statement that they spoken the statement in English and that he translated the same into Telugu, the witness deposed that all the prosecution witnesses have no prior acquaintance with the accused, and that the witnesses stated to him that the
Contd..11 person P. Ramesh is the driver he do not know how the witnesses came to know the name of the accused, the witness admitted that there is no visibility to the outsider to know whether the driver of the vehicle applied gear or hand break, when the vehicle was stopped, the witness deposed that the persons Ch. Chandrasekhar (PW-10) is working in
Avadhutha Matham and another person C. Krishna (PW-11) is working in the
Mounaswamy matham, the witness deposed that he did not collected any CCTV footage and that CCTV cameras are install at Tirumala in some places only and that security people are available in Avadhutha matham and also in Mounaswamy matham and that he did not examined that security people, the witness further deposed that he did not obtained any permission from the Motor Vehicle Inspector to shift the crime vehicle and that he shifted the crime vehicle as part of his investigation to regulate traffic, the witness admitted that as shown to him the Driving licence of the accused it was issued in the year 2006 to drove the non transport vehicle for LMV, a suggestion was put to the witness that the accused never came to the police station and that he never confessed the offence and that the accused not drove the crime vehicle on the date of offence and that as the accused is having driving licence a false case is foisted against him to enable the injured to claim compensation as the accused being the registered owner, the suggestion is denied by the witness, another suggestion was put to the witness that the witness did not went to the scene of offence and that he did not prepared any rough sketch and that he made table investigation and filed the charge sheet and that the accused is not concerned with this case and that the prosecution version is created story, the suggestion is denied by the witness.
23)C.Y. Satyanarayana (PW-1) is an eye witness to the incident, according to his evidence no one was present in driving seat at the time of accident, and that he did not observed whether the driver of crime vehicle applied the hand break and put stones at the types of crime vehicle, M. Dharani (PW-2) is also eye witness to the incident and he deposing the registration number of the crime vehicle and he identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle, N. Raja (PW-3) is also an eye witness to the incident and he identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle and deposed that no driver was present in the crime vehicle, S. Mahindran (PW-4) is the husband of the deceased but he is not an eye witness, S. Ramalingam (PW-5) is the witness present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased according to his evidence, D. Rajasekhar, K. Vijay Kumar were also present at the time of inquest and they made their signatures in the inquest report, Ch.
Srinivasulu (PW-6) is a marriage contactor and identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle, B. Rajasekhar Reddy (PW-7) is the caterer made signature in the inquest report, S.
Nagaraja Naik (PW-8) is the motor vehicle inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued report that the accident occurred is not due to mechanical defects of the crime vehicle, Dr. K. Bhaskar (PW-9) is the Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found 9 ante mortem external wounds and 3 ante mortem internal wounds and opined that the deceased died due to heamorragic shock due to multiple
Contd..12 wounds sustained, Ch. Chandrasekhar (PW-10) is the manager of Avadhutha Peetham deposed that he observed the accident through CCTV footage install in front of Avadhutha
Peetham and deposed that the said footage are saves for one month only. C. Krishna (PW-
11) is the office boy working in Mounaswamy matham identified the accused as driver of the crime vehicle, N. Kumar (PW-12) is the eye witness to the accident deposed that as driver of crime vehicle has not applied hand break and not kept the vehicle on gear while parking the incident was occurred this witness is a taxi driver living at Tirumala, M. Suresh (PW-13 is also working as driver to a tempo traveller bearing No TN22 CD-7034 and in his vehicle the deceased Geetha and her family members travelled to Tirumala for the purpose of ear boring ceremony of her daughter, PW-14 is the investigation officer on receiving the written complaint from C.Y. Satyanarayana (PW-1) took up investigation and reached the scene of offence and shifted the crime vehicle and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, according to his evidence on 13.07.2016 at about 10.30 am the accused himself came to the police station and voluntarily confessed the offence and found the documents relating to crime vehicle and also his driving licence, but according to the evidence of this witness the driving licence was not inforce, the accused is driver cum owner of the crime vehicle according to the evidence of prosecution witnesses the place of accident is upgrading road and the accused though parked his vehicle has not applied the hand break and not put the stones behind the tyres of the parked vehicle, as a result the vehicle moved itself in reverse side and hit the other parked vehicles and also hit the female person Geetha who was standing nearby, these circumstances shows that the accused is much negligence while parking the vehicle and he has no cared about the pedestrians on the road, and these vailation of precaution is also amounts to rashness on the part of accused, therefore in view of the evidence on record i.e., oral and documentary evidence and after considering the same I came to conclusion that the accused acted in rash and negligent manner which resulted to the death of an innocent woman, in the above circumstances I hold that the accused comiitted the offence and that he is liable for conviction.
I will pass the sentence of punishment after questioning the accused about the sentence of punishment to be passed against him.
The explanation given by the accused is not satisfactory and I will pass the sentence of punishment against the accused.
Contd..13
24) In the result the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 279 IPC and U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act and he is convicted U/sec. 255 (2) Cr.P.C, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the period six months for the offence U/sec. 304-A IPC, and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence U/sec. 279 IPC, and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five thousands only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of three months for the offence
U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act. The period of detention of accused during the enquiry, investigation and trial shall be set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Steno Typist, after transcribed by him, corrected by me and
pronounced in the open Court, this the 28th day of May, 2019.
Sd/- K.V. Narayana Reddy
VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- Special Magistrate, Tirupati.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For Prosecution: PW-1C.Y. Satyanarayana PW-2M. Dharani PW-3N. Raja PW-4S. Mahendran PW-5S. Ramalingam PW-6Ch. Srinivasulu PW-7D. Rajasekhar Reddy PW-8S. Nagaraja Naik PW-9Dr. K. Bhaskar PW-10Ch. Chandra Reddy PW-11C. Krishnappa PW-12N. Kumar PW-13M. Suresh PW-14Veeresh For Defence: -Nil-
Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution:
Ex.P1Report given by PW-1 dated 10.07.2016. Ex.P2Inquest report dated 10.07.2016. Ex.P3Motor Vehicle Inspection Report.
Ex.P4Post mortem certificate. Ex.P5First information report. Ex.P6Rough sketch. Contd..14
For Defence:
Ex.D1 Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-12.
Ex.D2 Certain portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-12.
Material Objects- Nil - // True Copy // Sd/- K.V. Narayana Reddy VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- Special Magistrate, Tirupati.
IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –CUM-
SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUPATI.
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
Calendar Case No. 251/2018
Date of Offence:10.07.2016
Date of Report:11.07.2016
Date of Taken on file:24.10.2016
Date of Apprehension :01.12.2016 (Appearance before Court)
Date of commencement of Trial:04.06.2018
Date of close of Trial:17.05.2019
Date of Judgment:28.05.2019
Complainant:Sub-Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Tirumala. Crime No. 17/2016. Name of the Father’s Age Calling Religion Residence Mandal Accused Name P. RameshP. Chandraiah35DriverHinduD.No.14/18,Tirupati yearsSeshadra Nagar, Settipalli (P), Karakambadi road, Tirupati Nature of Offence & :U/sec. 304-A, 279 IPC and U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Section of LawAct. Causing death by rash or negligent manner, and rash driving or riding on public way and Driving a motor vehicle in a public place without having a valid driving licence.
Finding:Accused found guilty
Sentence: The accused is found guilty for the offences punishable U/sec. 304-A, 279 IPC and U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act and he is convicted U/sec. 255 (2) Cr.P.C, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the period six months for the offence U/sec. 304-A IPC, and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence U/sec. 279 IPC, and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five thousands only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for the period of three months for the offence U/sec. 3 r/w sec. 181 of M.V. Act. The period of detention of accused during the enquiry, investigation and trial shall be set off U/sec. 428 Cr.P.C. Contd..2
The accused paid total fine amount of Rs.4,500/- on 28.05.2019.
// True Copy // Sd/- K.V. Narayana Reddy VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge –cum- Special Magistrate, Tirupati.