1 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
APVS030028452024
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM
Present:-Sri M. Pradeep Kumar,
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
Thursday day, this the 14th day of May, 2026
C.C. No.1157/2024
BETWEEN :
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. ….Complainant
And :
Battini Bhaskara Rao, S/o Mahalakshmi, age 32 years, R/o D.No.4-1-18/2, Devanag Veedhi, Rajapuram, Kaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. Operator of Tata Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator Model EX200LC Super Plus Fitted with Long Arm and Coke Bucket, Serial No.SP20-31001. ….Accused
This case is comingon 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Babji Rao, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-
J U D G M E N T
The Inspector of Police, Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city filed charge sheet against the Accused in Crime No.10/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A, IPC.
2 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.02.2024, at 10.00 hours, B.Danesh’s (LW1) father B.Srinivasa Rao (deceased) went for rail wagon cleaning work at ESSAR-2, Kanna Yard. In the evening at about 19.30 hours, the said LW1 received phone call from LW6 K.Mohan Rao and
LW7 K.Durga Rao and informed that the said LW1’s father met with an accident inside the wagon. Immediately, the said LW1 rushed to the spot and found his father with grievous injuries over both thighs and the said LW1 shifted his father to KGH, Visakhapatnam. Later on enquiry, it came to light, while the deceased was cleaning inside the rail wagon, meanwhile, the accused being the operator of Tata Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator Model
EX200LC vehicle, was unloading from the wagon as he dropped the bucket of
Excavator in a rash and negligent manner over both the thighs of deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and on 22.02.2024 at 01.38 hours, the deceased was died while undergoing treatment in KGH,
Visakhapatnam city.
Basing on the report of LW1 B.Denesh, LW14 A.Dasaradhi registered the same as a case in Cr.No.10/2024 for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and endorsed the same to LW13 L.Venkata Rao for investigation.
During the course of investigation, the said LW13 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, served notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. to the Accused, received postmortem certificate of the deceased from LW12 Dr.N.Srinivasa Reddy, wherein the said
LW12 opined that the cause of death is “multiple blunt force injuries” and
LW11 Ch.Manmohan, MVI Inspector, who received requisition to inspect the crime vehicle, returned the requisition with an endorsement that the crime vehicle does not complies under M.V. Act, since it is chain driven vehicle and after completion of investigation, the said LW14 filed charge sheet against the
Accused. Hence the charge.
3 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
3.Cognizance was taken by this Court for the offence punishable
U/Sec.304-A, IPC against the Accused.
4.On appearance of the Accused, the copies of documents as contemplated U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C were furnished to him.
5.On appearance of the Accused, this Court read over and explained the substance of the accusation made out for the offence punishable
U/Sec.304-A, IPC against the Accused by examining him U/Sec. 251, Cr.P.C, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.In pursuance of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
7.After the closure of the prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined U/Sec.313, Cr.P.C. and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
8.Heard both sides.
(a)The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued before this court that the operation of proclainer by the accused is clearly established from the evidence of direct witness PW2 and the operation of proclainer by the accused negligently is also established from the evidence of PW2. He further argued that the learned defense counsel did not dispute anything regarding the accused acting as operator for proclainer. He further argued that the deceased present in the wagon for cleaning purpose, operating of proclainer by the accused by sending the bucket into the wagon and due to that, the death of deceased are all clearly established from the evidence of PW1 to
PW7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Therefore, the Accused is liable for conviction.
4 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
(b) The learned defence counsel filed his written arguments wherein he argued that the entire incident is purely an accident and there is no criminal negligence and accident could have occurred due to miscommunication or sudden entry of deceased into the wagon. He further argued that the incident was occurred on 21.02.2025 at 07.30 P.M. and FIR was registered on 22.02.2024 and hence, there is a delay in registering the case and prosecution did not explain any reason for the said delay and hence, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.
9. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?"
10. POINT :-
As this is a case punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC., the prosecution has to establish that the accused operated the proclainer negligently and due to that, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and thereafter he was expired while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
11. Perused the record. Out of fourteen list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined seven list of witnesses. In the present case on hand, PW.1 is the complainant, PW2 and PW3 are the co-employees of the deceased and eye witnesses to the incident, PW4 is the mediator to the inquest conducted over the dead body of the deceased, PW5 is the Asst.
Professor, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, Andhra Medical
College, Visakhapatnam city, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, PW6 is the M.V. Inspector and PW7 is the
Investigating Officer.
5 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
12.P.W.1, who is resident of Visakhapatnam city, deposed before this
Court in her chief examination that on 21.02.2024 at about 10.00 A.M., his father left their house to Visakhapatnam Port Trust for clearing the wagons, on that day at about 07.30 P.M., LW6 Mohan Rao called him over phone and informed him that his father met with an accident relating to wagon and advised him to come to the said place immediately, the said LW6 further informed him that while his father was cleaning the wagon, the accused who was the operator of proclainer, he operated the proclainer in rash and negligent manner without seeing his father cleaning the wagon and the said the accused made the heavy bucket of the proclainer to come down and hit his father in between stomach and both legs, the said LW6 further informed him that his father sustained severe bleeding injuries, then, immediately he rushed to the said place, they shifted his father to KGH, Visakhapatnam city with the help of the head mason by name P.Trinadha Reddy, he did not see the accused at the scene of offence, on the same day in the intervening night hours of 21/22.02.2024 at about 02.00 A.M, his father was expired in the said hospital while undergoing treatment, then, he went to Harbour police station,
Visakhapatnam city and he lodged his report (Ex.P1) before the police, he saw the accused in the Harbour police station, Visakhapatnam city and the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and the police handed over the dead body of his father after completion of the inquest.
During his cross examination, PW1 deposed that he did not record the phone call conversation which he had with said LW6 and the said LW6 informed him over phone that he saw the alleged incident and he saw several times about the accused operating the proclainer. PW1 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that he foisted this false case by creating a false story in his grief as his father was expired.
6 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
13.PW2, who is resident of Visakhapatnam city, deposed before this
Court in his chief examination that on 21.02.2024 at about 07.30 P.M., he was cleaning one wagon, Durga Rao (LW7) was cleaning the doors of the wagon and the said deceased was cleaning another wagon, at that time, the accused operated the proclainer in negligent manner and moved the bucket of the proclainer to the wagon which was cleaning by the said deceased, then, the accused moved the bucket of the proclainer into the wagon, the bucket hit and went into the body of the said deceased i.e., below the abdomen and above the thighs, due to the said incident, the said deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and few body parts came out from the body of the said deceased and there was a huge bleeding of the blood on the ground, thereafter, they called the contractor over phone and narrated the same, thereafter, the said deceased was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam city in an ambulance, on the next day morning in the early hours, the said deceased was died.
During his cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that there is no particular timings of work for him. PW2 added that whenever the wagon arrives, he will attend for the work. PW2 further deposed that he saw the alleged incident from a distance of 9 to 10 feet and a person whoever was cleaning the wagon from inside will not be visible to the accused as the accused was the operator of the said proclainer. PW2 further added that the accused saw the deceased entering into the wagon for clearing purpose and further added that though the accused has knowledge of deceased entering into the wagon for cleaning purpose, operating the proclainer by the accused is complete negligence on his part. PW2 further deposed that by the time he reached the said wagon, the said deceased was lying on the floor by stretching his hands and facing towards sky. PW2 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that the entire scene of offence was covered with a dust and it was not visible and the said deceased was not cleaning the said wagon at the time of alleged incident and the said deceased was sleeping 7 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 in the said wagon. PW2 further deposed that there are no flood lights near the scene of offence. PW2 further added that the proclainer vehicle has head lights and entire scene of offence will be visible from the head lights of the proclainer. PW2 further denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that the rash or negligent operation of said proclainer by the accused is his assumption only. PW2 further deposed that he saw the bucket hitting the said deceased. PW2 further denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that he did not see the bucket hitting the said deceased. PW2 further deposed that the front part of bucket hit the said deceased. PW2 further denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that he did not see the alleged incident and it is not possible for him to see the incident which took place inside the wagon as he was present out side of the wagon and the iron sheet of the wagon will be in between him and the incident place and hence the incident is not visible to him.
14.PW3, who is resident of Visakhapatnam deposed before this court in his chief examination that on 21.02.2024 at about 07.30 P.M., the deceased was cleaning one wagon, at that time, the proclainer operator operated the proclainer in negligent manner and moved the bucket of the proclainer to the wagon which was cleaning by the said deceased, due to the entering of the bucket of the proclianer into the wagon, the bucket hit and went into the body of the said deceased i.e., below the abdomen and above the thighs, due to the said incident, the said deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and there was a huge bleeding of the blood on the ground, thereafter, the said deceased was shifted to KGH, Visakhapatnam city in an ambulance, on the next day, the said deceased was died and the accused who was present in the court was the operator of the said proclainer.
During his cross-examination, P.W.3 deposed that the distance between the accused and him at the time of alleged incident was the length of one wagon i.e., 20 feet approximately and he did not inform the accused that 8 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 the said deceased was present inside the wagon and was cleaning the wagon.
PW3 added that the accused saw the said deceased entering into the wagon.
PW3 further deposed that he do not know the reason why the accused operated the proclainer and made the bucket enter into the said wagon. PW3 further added that after cleaning the wagon, the proclainer operator should not operate the proclainer and should not drive the bucket of the proclainer into the wagon. PW3 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that there was no sufficient lighting at the time of alleged incident as the time was 07.30 P.M. and the men at work will not be visible properly at the time of loading and unloading of the items of the wagon due to dust and mud. PW3 further added that at the time of alleged incident, it was wet mud and hence the men at work were visible. PW3 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that the accused did not operate the proclainer in negligent manner and there is no rash or negligent act on the part of the accused and he was deposing false only to help the family members of the said deceased.
15.PW4, who is resident of Visakhapatnam city, deposed before this
Court in his chief examination that on 22.02.2024 at about 09.00 A.M., he went to KGH, Visakhapatnam city on knowing the information of death of the said deceased, at that place, he saw severe injuries below the abdomen of the deceased dead body, at that place, the police requested him and B.Shankar (LW10) and others to act as mediators, they accepted the same, the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the said hospital, he along with said LW10 and other affixed their signatures on inquest report (Ex.P2), they opined that the said deceased was died due to sustaining injuries below the abdomen by falling of bucket of proclianer.
During his cross-examination, P.W.4 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that he did not act as mediator and the police did not held inquest in his presence over the dead body of the said deceased and he affixed his signature on Ex.P2 in the police station.
9 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
16.PW5, who is Asst. Professor, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology
Department, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam city, deposed before this
Court in his chief examination that on 22.02.2024 at 12.45 P.M., he received requisition from SHO, Harbour P.S. Visakhapatnam city to conduct postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and he commenced postmortem examination on 22.02.2024 at about 01.00 P.M and conducted it by 02.00 P.M.
on 22.02.2024, he noticed the external appearance, postmortem changes and injuries antimortem in nature and noted the internal examination findings in postmortem report, the time of death of the said deceased was at 01.38 A.M.
on 22.02.2024 at KGH, Visakhapatnam city, the cause of death of the said deceased to the best of his knowledge and belief was due to multiple blunt force injuries, accordingly, he issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P3).
During his cross-examination, P.W.5 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that the cause of death of the said deceased was likely possible due to previous health issues of the said deceased. PW5 added that as per his record, there is no previous health issues of the deceased. PW5 admitted that he did not note the previous health issues of the said deceased in Ex.P3. PW5 further added that as he noted the brain- nothing particular, heart-nothing particular,lungs-nothing particular and kidneys-nothing particular, liver-nothing particular and neck muscles-nothing particular, the previous health condition of the said deceased was normal.
17.P.W.6, who is Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, Visakhapatnam, deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on 26.07.2024, he received requisition (Ex.P4) from SHO of Harbour Police Station,
Visakhapatnam city to inspect the crime vehicle i.e., Tata Hitachi 200 vehicle i.e., Excavtor Hydraulic Machine bearing S.No.SP20-31001, then, he returned the said requisition to the said SHO with an endorsement that Hydraulic excavator does not complies under MV Act, since it is chain driven vehicle.
10 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
The cross-examination of PW6 was reported NIL by the learned defence counsel and hence, the evidence of PW6 remained unchallenged.
18.PW7, who is retired SI of Police and the then S.I of Police,
Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city, deposed before this Court in his chief examination that on 22.02.2024 at about 10.00 A.M., their inspector of police Dasaradhi (LW14) registered a case in Cr.No.10/2024 of Harbour Police
Station, Visakhapatnam city for the offence punishable U/sec.304-A of IPC and issued FIR (Ex.P5) basing on report (Ex.P1) of PW1, the said LW14 endorsed him to investigate this case, he took up investigation in this case, thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at ESSAR-2, Kanna Yard, Inside rail wagon, Port Area, Visakhapatnam city, he observed the scene of offence (Ex.P6) and prepared rough sketch (Ex.P7) of the scene offence, at that place, he secured the presence of PW1, Rajeswari (LW2), Jagannadham (LW3),
Srinivas (LW4) and Raja Rao (LW5) and he examined them and recorded their statements, thereafter, he proceeded to KGH, Visakhapatnam city, at that place, he secured the presence of PW4 and Shankar (LW10) as mediators, then, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased B.Srinivasa Rao in the presence of said mediators and he prepared inquest report (Ex.P2) at that place in their presence, he secured the presence of PW2, PW3 and Shankar
Rao (LW8) and he examined them and recorded their statements, on 24.02.2024, he issued notice to the accused u/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., thereafter, the said LW14 took up further investigation in this case, the said LW14 sent a requisition (Ex.P4) to the MVI, Visakhapatnam city to inspect the crime vehicle,
PW6 endorsed on Ex.P4 that the said vehicle does not complies under MV Act since it is chain driven vehicle, the said LW14 received postmortem certificate (Ex.P3) from KGH, Visakhapatnam city and the said LW14 verified his investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
During his cross-examination, PW7 admitted that he did not mention the position of the deceased in Ex.P7 rough sketch. PW7 added that 11 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 by the time he reached the scene of offence, the deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment as he was severely injured and the deceased was expired while undergoing treatment in the hospital. PW7 deposed that the accused operated the Excavator negligently and as the accused operated the
Excavator while one person was cleaning inside the wagon, the said operation is said to be negligent on the part of the accused and he did not observe whether CC cameras were affixed near the scene of offence. PW7 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that he did not investigate the case on true and correct lines and as his investigation is on false lines and as his investigation is no way helpful to this court, the accused not committed any crime.
19.Ex.P1 which is the report of PW1 speaks that they were migrated to Visakhapatnam city about fourteen years back and PW1 is working as
Supervisor in R.R.Global Firm and his father i.e., deceased was working as a coolie in the wagons in ORCA Logistics Private Limited and on 21.02.2024 at about 10.00 A.M., the deceased left their house for cleaning wagons and on the same day at about 7.30 P.M., the persons by names Nayana Gowri,
Marada Chinna called him over phone and informed him that while the deceased was cleaning wagon from inside near ESSAR-2, Canna Yard, the accused being the operator of proclainer i.e., Tata Hithach, 200 SL No.7, operated proclainer and sent the bucket into the wagon in which the deceased was cleaning and due to that, the bucket weight fell on the legs and thighs of the deceased, due to that, the thighs of the deceased were crushed and the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and thereafter, PW1 rushed to the scene of offence and shifted the deceased to KGH, Visakhapatnam city and in the late night hours i.e., on 22.02.2024 at about 01.38 A.M., the doctors declared the deceased as died.
12 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 20.This court observed that it is the case of the prosecution that the accused operated the proclainer and sent the proclainer bucket into the wagon in which the deceased was cleaning and due to that, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injuries and died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
This court observed that Ex.P1 report and PW1 evidence clearly speaks that he was informed about the incident by the co-workers of the deceased. This court clearly observed that PW1 evidence speaks that he was informed about the incident by PW2. Hence, the evidence of PW2 is very much crucial for the said incident. PW2 evidence clearly speaks that the proclainer operator moved the bucket of the proclainer into the wagon in negligent manner and due to the entering of the bucket of the proclainer into the wagon, the bucket hit and went into the body of the deceased. This court clearly observed that
PW2 completely supported the prosecution case and his evidence clearly speaks that the accused operated the proclainer and sent the proclainer bucket into the wagon.
21.This court further observed that the learned defense counsel did not dispute anything about the accused acting as operator for the said proclainer at the time of alleged incident. Moreover, the learned defense counsel did not put any questions or suggestions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the accused acting as operator for the said proclainer. This court further observed that PW2 evidence in his cross examination clearly speaks that the accused saw the deceased entering into wagon for cleaning purpose and though the accused has knowledge of deceased entering into the wagon for cleaning purpose, operating the proclainer by the accused is complete negligence on his part. Hence, this court clearly believed from the evidence of
PW2 that the accused operated the proclainer and sent the bucket into the wagon in which the deceased was cleaning the wagon, though the accused has knowledge that the deceased was inside the wagon and cleaning the wagon.
13 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 22This court observed that PW3 who is coolie, his evidence also speaks that the accused operated the proclainer in negligent manner and moved the bucket of proclainer to the wagon which was cleaning by the deceased. PW3 deposed before this court in his cross examination that he do not know the reason why the accused operated the proclainer and made the bucket enter into the said wagon and after clearning the wagon, proclainer operated should not operate the proclainer and should not drive the bucket of the proclainer into the wagon. From these part of PW3 evidence, this court clearly believed that the accused operated the proclainer negligently and sent the bucket into the wagon which was being cleaned by the deceased.
23.It is the argument of the learned defense counsel that there was huge dust and mud at that place and the wagon is not visible to the people and also it was dark at the time of alleged incident as it was about 07.30 P.M. This court observed that in this regard, PW2 and PW3 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that the entire scene of offence covered with dust and it was not visible. PW2 deposed before this court in his cross examination that there are no flood lights near the scene of offence and proclainer vehicle has head lights and entire scene of offence will be visible from the head lights of the proclainer. PW3 denied the suggestion put by the learned defense counsel that there was sufficient lighting at the time of alleged incident as the time was 07.30 P.M.
24.This court observed that PW4 who is inquest mediator, his evidence clearly speaks that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and prepared inquest report (Ex.P2). This court observed that PW4 denied the suggestions put by the learned defense counsel in his cross examination about conducting of inquest and preparing of inquest report (Ex.P2) in his presence by the police. Hence, this court clearly 14 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 believed from the evidence of PW4 and Ex.P2 that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4.
25.This court further observed that PW5 who is doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, deposed before this court that the cause of death of the said deceased was due to blunt force injuries. This court observed that it is the argument of the learned defense counsel that the deceased was died due to previous health issues. The same was suggested to PW5 and PW5 denied the same.
Moreover, the learned defense counsel did file any record before this court to show the deceased has previous health issues and he was died due to previous health issues. Hence, from the evidence of PW5 and Ex.P3, this court clearly believed that the deceased was died due to blunt force injuries.
Hence, by putting together the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5 and Ex.P3, this court clearly believed that the deceased was died due to injuries sustained by him due to blunt force injuries. i.e., falling of bucket of proclainer on him.
26.This court observed the evidence of PW6 speaks that he returned the requisition to inspect the crime vehicle which was issued by the SHO, with an endorsement that Hydraulic Excavator does not complies under M.V. Act since it is chain driven vehicle. The evidence of PW6 is remained unchallenged as the learned defense counsel reported NIL to cross examine the witness. Hence, this court believed that the prosecution established that
SHO sent the requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle and MVI returned the Ex.P4 requisition with an endorsement by mentioning on Ex.P4 requisition itself.
27.It is the argument of the learned defense counsel that the investigating officer did not investigate the case on proper and correct lines.
This court observed that PW7 who is investigating officer, his evidence speaks 15 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 about registration of case and visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch (Ex.P7) and scene observation report (Ex.P6) and examining witnesses and visiting the hospital and conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and preparing inquest report (Ex.P2) and issuing notice to the accused U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C. and sending requisition to MVI and receiving postmortem certificate (Ex.P3) from the hospital and filing of charge sheet.
This court observed that PW7 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mention the position of the deceased in Ex.P7 rough sketch. For that PW7 added that by the time he reached the scene of offence, the deceased was shifted to hospital for treatment as he was severely injured and the deceased was expired while undergoing treatment. PW7 evidence in his cross examination also speaks that the accused operated excavator while one person was cleaning inside the wagon, the said operation is said to be negligent on the part of the accused. This court observed that PW7 evidence in his cross examination speaks that he did not observe whether CC cameras were affixed near the scene of offence. This court is of the opinion that non securing CC camera footage from the scene of offence itself is not sufficient to come to opinion that the investigating officer did not investigate the case properly at all.
28.. This court observed that the learned defense counsel argued that the accident could have occurred due to miscommunication or sudden entry of deceased. Whereas PW2 was suggested by the learned defense counsel during his cross examination that the deceased was sleeping in the wagon, which PW2 denied. Hence, the argument of the learned defense counsel is inconsistent and is not believed by this court. On the other hand as the evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5 clearly speaks that the cause of death of the deceased due to entering of bucket of proclainer into the wagon and causing severe bleeding injuries, this court clearly believed that the accused operated the proclainer negligently and due to that the deceased was died. Hence, as 16 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024 the prosecution established the negligent operation of proclainer by the accused and the cause of death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt, this court is of the opinion that the decisions relied upon by the learned defense counsel reported in 2016 ALD (Crl)(SC) 241, held in between Daud Khan Vs
State of Rajasthan, a decision reported in 1965 AIR (SC) 1616, held in
between Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Bangawalla Vs State of
Maharashtra, a decision reported in 2005 AIR (SC) 3180 held in between
Jacob Mathew Vs State of Punjab & Another, and a decision reported in
1998 (8) SCC 493 held in between State of Karnataka Vs Satishare all not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
29.From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution established that the accused operated the proclainer in negligent manner and due to that, the deceased was died by sustaining severe bleeding injuries.
Hence, this court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the accused is liable for conviction.
30.In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.304-A of IPC and accordingly, the Accused is convicted U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-M.Pradeep Kumar
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam
The Accused is questioned regarding the quantum of sentence that can be imposed against him for the offence U/Sec.304-A, IPC.
17 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
For which, the Accused submitted that he is having old aged mother and she is completely depended on him and he has to look after her welfare and he requested this court to take lenient view.
As the offence is punishable U/Sec. 304-A of IPC, this court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to apply the provisions of P.O. Act or Sec.360 of Cr.P.C. and this court relied on a decision on this aspect which is reported in 2004 SCC (Crl.) 1208 held in between Dalbir Singh vs. State of Haryana.
Hence, this court did not apply the provisions of P.O.Act. However, in view of the mercy pleaded by the Accused and in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Accusedis sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and the Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousands only) for the offence punishable
U/Sec.304-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. No period of detention is undergone by the Accused and hence, no period of detention to be set off
U/Sec. 428 of CrPC. The Accused is furnished with the copy of Judgment and he is appraised of his right of preferring appeal before the appropriate Forum.
No property order is passed, as there is no property in this case. The office is directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the District Legal Services
Authority, Visakhapatnam and this Court recommended for compensation to the dependents of the deceased U/Sec.357-A of Cr.P.C. Hence, the District
Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the dependents of the deceased U/Sec. 357-A (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Grade-II Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14 th day of May, 2026.
Sd/-
Sd/- M.Pradeep Kumar
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam 18 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :
PW-1 : Bochcha Danesh NONE PW-2 : Konthala Mohan Rao PW-3 : Kolli Durga Rao PW-4 : Chilla Pydiraju PW-5 : Dr.N.Srinivasa Reddy PW-6 : Ch.Manmohan PW-7 : L.Venkata Rao
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P1 : Report of P.W1. Ex.P2 : Inquest report of the deceased Bocha Srinivasa Rao, Dt.22.02.2024. Ex.P3 : Postmortem certificate, dt.22.02.2024. Ex.P4 : Requisition of S.H.O. Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city along with M.V.I. endorsement. Ex.P5 :F.I.R. in Cr.No.10/2024 of Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. Ex.P6 : Scene observation report, dt.22.02.2024. Ex.P7 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence, dt.22.02.2024.
FOR DEFENCE :NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL
SSd/- M.Pradeep Kumar Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam //True Copy//
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.i 19 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
CALENDER AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
VISAKHAPATNAM
CALENDER CASE NO.1157/2024
(Cr.No.10/2024 of Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city)
Date of offence 21.02.2024
Date of report or complaint 22.02.2024
Date of apprehension of the accused ---
Date of commencement of trial 17.09.2025
Date of close of trial 25.03.2026
Date of sentence or order 14.05.2026
Accused is in Jail/Bail ---
Explanation of delay or remarks Due to non production of witnesses
Name of the ComplainantState Represented by the Inspector of Police, Harbour Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.
Battini Bhaskara Rao, S/o Mahalakshmi, Name of the Accused age 32 years, R/o D.No.4-1-18/2, Devanag Veedhi, Rajapuram, Kaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. Operator of Tata Hitachi Hydraulic Excavator Model EX200LC Super Plus Fitted with Long Arm and Coke Bucket, Serial No.SP20-31001.
OffenceU/Sec.304-A, IPC
Finding Accused is found guilty
Sentence In the result, the Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and accordingly, the Accused is convicted U/Sec.255(2) of Cr.P.C.
20 CJM Court, VSP C.C. No.1157/2024
The Accusedis sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Two (2) years and the Accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousands only) for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC, in default of payment of fine, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (1) month. No period of detention is undergone by the Accused and hence, no period of detention to be set off U/Sec. 428 of CrPC. The Accused is furnished with the copy of Judgment and he is appraised of his right of preferring appeal before the appropriate Forum. No property order is passed, as there is no property in this case. The office is directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam and this Court recommended for compensation to the dependents of the deceased U/Sec.357-A of Cr.P.C. Hence, the District Legal Services Authority, Visakhapatnam shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the dependents of the deceased U/Sec. 357-A (2) of Cr.P.C. R
Sd/- M.Pradeep Kumar
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.
//True Copy//
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Visakhapatnam.i