IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM.
PRESENT: Sri M.SRIDHAR, LL.B., II Metropolitan Magistrate, for Railways, Visakhapatnam, FAC. III Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.
Thursday, the 3 rd day of January, 2013
C.C.787/2008
This case was coming on 02-01-2013 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri. M.Ravi, Advocate for the accused, and upon haring their arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
A)Serial Number of the Case:C.C.787/2008
B) Date of offence:18-09-2008
C) Name of the complainant:State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem traffic Police Station, Visakhapatnam city.
D) Name of the Accused :Sampangi Banu Babu S/o late Appa Rao, 47 years, Settybalija, R/o D.No.3-151/1A,Boravanipalem, Ambedkar colony, Paradesipalem, Madhuravada, Visakhapatnam Driver of RTC Bus AP 9 Z 8227 (Route No.12 K) Maddilapalem Depot.
E) Offence complained of :U/Sec.304-A IPC
F) plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.
A)
Final Judgment:
1) The Sub Inspector, Kancharapalem Traffic police station, Visakhapatnam city, filed the charge-sheet against the sole accused for an offence U/sec.304-A
IPC with the following allegations:
2).That on 18-09-2008 at about 2-50 P.M. the deceased Allipilli Yella Rao started from RTC complex in 12 K AP 9Z 8227 city bus when reached BNTIN colony at the request stop, while getting down from the bus, the accused drier of bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and moved the bus negligently, resulting the deceased fell down from the bus received head injury, immediately injured was shifted to K.G. Hospital for treatment, while undergoing
2
treatment he was succumbed to injuries on 26-09-2008 at 7-30 P.M. The PW1 presented a report it was registered as Cr.No.179/08, U/sec.338 IPC. On 27-09- 2008 at 8-00 hours basing on the report of PW1, PW6 altered the section of law from 338 IPC to Sec.304-A IPC. PW5 held inquest over the dead body in the presence of witnesses. P.W.7 The Asst Professor Forensic conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem report. P.W.8 The
MV Inspector inspected the accident vehicle and opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects. On 30-09-2008 the accused was arrested by the P.W.9 Sub Inspector of police and produced before the court for remand.
After completion of investigation P.W.9 filed charge sheet against the accused under section 304 A of Indian Penal Code.
3)This court took cognizance of the offence U/sec.304-A IPC, against the accused. The copies of documents were furnished to the accused U/sec.207
Cr.P.C, The accused is examined U/sec.251Cr.P.C.,for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC and the same was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and exhibited
Ex.P.1 to P.10 and Ex.D.1 marked.
5) To substantiate its case the prosecution examined the PW1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses to the accident.
PW4 is the inquest panchayatdhar. P.W.5 is the Conductor. P.W.6 and P.W.9 are the Police officials in this case. P.W.7 is the Asst. Professor who issued PM report.
P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.P.1 is the report of P.W.1 on 25-09-2008 . Ex.P.2 is the report of P.W.1 on 27-09-2008. Ex.P.3 is the inquest panchanama,
Ex.P.4 is the Statistical statement. Ex.P.5 is the 161 Cr.P.C of P.W.5. Ex.P.6 is the
Rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem report. Ex.P.8 is the M.V. I report. Ex.P.9 is the First Information Report under section 338 IPC.
Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report altered the section of law from 338 to 304
A Indian Penal Code. Ex.D.1 is the 161 statement of P.W.2 in 20, 21 lines.
6) After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined
U/sec.313 Cr. P.C., and he denied the incriminating evidence spoken by the
3
prosecution witnesses. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused.
7)Heard arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused.
8)The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 are coupled with the Investigating Officer goes to say that accused was driver of the crime vehicle because of its rash and negligent driving the deceased fell down from the RTC crime vehicle and sustained heavy injuries and died later on. P.W.2 also fell down from the bus and sustained injuries and prayed the court to convict the accused.
9)On the other hand, the learned counsel of the accused argued that accused was falsely implicated in this case and none of the prosecution witnesses as stated that accused drove the crime vehicle in its heavy speed and rash and negligent manner and also there is contradictory negligence on the part of the deceased and prays the court to acquit the accused.
10)Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.304 A Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?
11) According to PW1 on 18-09-2008 at about 2.00 P.M. while he was present at their house, he came to know through his neighbours that his father sustained injuries due to fell from the bus at BNT colony, immediately he went to scene of offence and by that time his father shifted to K.G. Hospital, there he found his father with injuries. On 25-09-2008 he gave report to police under Ex.P.1 and on 27-09-2008 his father succumbed for his injuries he again gave report to police under Ex.P.2.
12) According to PW2, he know the deceased Yellarao and in the year 2008 while he, P.W.3 and the deceased were boarded in the bus route No.12 K at RTC
New colony to go to Kancharapalem at about 2.00 to 3.00 P.M, he has not observed the driver of the bus, when the bus reached near the Dharmanagar they requested the Conductor to stop the bus, on that driver slow down the bus and when deceased Yella rao while getting down from the bus driver of the bus
4
drove it speedily for which, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury, immediately he was shifted to KG Hospital and after one week the deceased succumbed to injuries, after deceased fell down he also jumped down from the bus and sustained injuries.
13)According to PW3, he know the deceased Yellarao who died in an accident.
On 18-09-2008 he, P.W.2 and the deceased were boarded in the bus route No12
K at RTC New colony to go to Kancharapalem during afternoon, while the deceased Yella rao getting down from the bus, driver drove it for which the deceased fell down and sustained head injury. Prior to that he get down from the bus and P.W.2 also fell down from the bus, immediately he was shifted to KG
Hospital and after one week the deceased succumbed for his injuries and while learned APP asked whether he saw the driver of the bus and if so identify the driver whether he is present in the court hall or not, then he observed after two minutes, identified the accused as driver who sat in the accused dock, accused is the driver of RTC bus.
14)According to P.W.4, he know the deceased Yella rao, and he attended to
KG Hospital, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Yella rao in his presence and he opined that the injured died might have been in an accident and he signed on the inquest panchanama under Ex.P.3.
15) P.W.5 turned hostile and according to him, he know the accused. In the year 2008 he worked as Conductor in the crime vehicle driven by the accused, on one day at about 2.00 PM three persons boarded the bus at Railway New colony in a drunken state and the bus was driven by the accused by the time when the crime vehicle went some distance who among aforesaid passengers got down from the moving bus and also accused retorted the speed of the bus due to heavy traffic, the deceased got down from the bus in a wrong direction and fell on the bus even though the crime vehicle was not for speed, as a result the deceased sustained heavy injuries and later they shifted to hospital, Ex.P.4 is the statistical statement and his 161 Cr.P.C. was marked Ex.P.5.
16)According to P.W.6 on 27-09-2008 at about 8.00 A.M. basing on the report of P.W.1, he altered the section of law from 338 to 304 A of Indian Penal Code, he
5
held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.4 he examined the witnesses, sent the body of the deceased for autopsy, further investigation was done by P.W.9 and he also prepared the rough sketch under
Ex.P.6.
17)According to P.W.7 on 27-09-2008 he received a requisition from the
Station House officer, Kancharapalem traffic Police station to conduct the postmortem examination of the deceased, he conducted the postmortem examination and he opined that the deceased died of respiratory and circulatory failure due to injury to brain due to head injury and he issued postmortem report under Ex.P.7.
18) According to P.W.8 he received he received a requisition from the Station
House officer, Kancharapalem traffic Police station and on 02-10-2008 he examined the crime vehicle and he found no damages, he opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle under
Ex.P.8.
19)According to P.W.9 , on 18-09-2008 at 2.50 PM P.W.1 came to the police station and gave a report and the same was registered a case in Cr.No.179/2008 under section 338 Indian Penal Code, he examined the P.W.1, visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence , subsequently basing on the report of P.W.1, he altered the section of law from 338 to 304 A
Indian Penal Code. During the course of investigation, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdhars, sent the body for the autopsy, after receipt of Postmortem certificate of the deceased he arrested the accused on 30.09.2008 at about 10 A.M. and produced before the court for remand, after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.
20) Among the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 evidence is only to extent that he learnt about the accident which said to have occurred on 18-09-2008, he found his father deceased with injuries in the KG Hospital, later on he presented report Ex.P.1 on 25-09-2008 and after death of father deceased he presented another report Ex.P.2. Therefore he is not the eye witness to the occurrence, his
6
role is only to the extent of learning of accident and presentation of Ex.P1 and
P.2.
21) Prosecution examined mediators for inquest, P.W.4 is the inquest mediators who observed the deceased and injuries on him during the inquest
Ex.P.3 is the inquest panchanama.
21) P.W.6 is the one of the investigating Officer, his role is that on 27-09- 2008 he altered the section of law from 338 to 304 A Indian Penal Code, conducting over the dead body of the deceased, examined the witnesses, sending of deceased for autopsy and drawing of rough sketch Ex.P.6.
22) As far as the death of deceased concerned prosecution examined medical officer P.W.7 Assistant Forensic who examined the deceased and conducted postmortem report and issued Ex.P.7 Postmortem report.
23) As far as the fitness of the crime vehicle is concerned prosecution examined
Motor Vehicle Inspector P.W.8 according to him he conducted road test of crime vehicle on 02-10-2008 at Kancharapalem and found vehicle intact and issued
Ex.P.8 M.V. I report and P.W.9 is Investigating Officer who said to have about role of investigation in this case.
24) However, there is no dispute from the accused in respect of accident and death of the deceased Yella Rao. Therefore, in view of the above evidences on record i.e. Postmortem report Ex.P.7 and Statistical and ticket counter Ex.P.4 it can be safely held that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and the deceased died in the accident.
25) The only point that arises for determination is whether the prosecution succeeded to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused at the time of said accident in which deceased died.
26) Out of the entire evidence on record the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 places important role since they traveled in the bus along with deceased and they were the eyewitnesses for the accident.
27) In the instant case P.W.2 though not identified the driver of the crime vehicle but asserted that while he along with P.W.3 and deceased boarded the crime vehicle in Route No.12 K RTC New Colony on request to conductor the
7
crime vehicle got slow down, while deceased getting down from the bus the accused drove the crime vehicle in speed as a result the deceased fell down. On the other hand, the evidence of P.W.3 is limited extent, according to him while deceased was getting down accused drove the crime vehicle, as a result deceased fell down and sustained injuries.
28) At the out set on careful scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 it is clear that deceased and P.W.2 tried to getting down from the moving bus and the bus was not completely stopped. On perusal of Ex.P.6 rough sketch coupled with evidence of P.W.6 there is no bus stop at the scene of offence. Therefore, it is evidently clear that the deceased and P.W.2 got down from the moving bus where there is no bus stop. In the instant case P.Ws.2 and 3 not whispered that there was any direction from the bus conductor P.W.5 to stop the bus. P.Ws.2 and 3 are silent that the conductor P.W.5 rang vessel to stop the bus, therefore there is no indication from P.W.5 (Conductor of the bus) to stop the bus. Hence, at the time of occurrence, there was no bus stop no indication from P.W.5 to stop the bus, but deceased and P.W.2 got down from the moving bus. Therefore it amounts to negligence on the part of the deceased and P.W.2.
29)Only becauseP.W.5 was declare hostile his evidence cannot be discarded. According to him, deceased and P.W.2 got down from the bus in wrong direction when bus retorted its speed due to heavy traffic, by virtue of
P.W.5 evidence coupled with the evidences of P.W.2 and P.W.3 it seems that there is a contributory negligence on the part of deceased and P.W.2. Hence, negligence on the part of deceased and P.W.2 cannot be ruled out.
30) Merely because deceased died in the accident and P.W.2 sustained injuries it cannot be said that the accident took place on account of negligent act of the accused. After considering the entire evidence on record, there is no sufficient material to of that accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner in the absence of sufficient material it is not safe to convict he accused.
8
31) Therefore, I feel that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
32) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.304-A Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted U/sec.255(1)Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court this the 3rd day of January, 2013.
II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM.
FAC. III Metropolitan
Magistrate,
Visakhapatnam Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1: Allipilli Suresh –Nil- P.W.2: Vasupalli Suri P.W.3: Boddu Chinna Rao P.W.4: Dooda Appa Rao P.W.5: B.A.Mohan P.W.6: M. Konda Reddy P.W.7: Dr. Y. Pydi Raju P.W.8: V.Balaji Rao P.W.9: V.Babji Rao
No. of Exhibits Marked
For Prosecution: For Defence
Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 on 25-09-2008 -Nil- Ex.P.2: Report of P.W.1 on27-09-2008 Ex.P.3: Inquest panchanama Ex.P.4: Statistical statement. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C of P.W.5 Ex.P.6: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P.7: Postmortem report Ex.P.8: M.V. Inspector report Ex.P.9:First Information Report under section 338 IPC Ex.P.10: First Information Report altered the section of law from 338 to 304 A Indian Penal Code. Ex.D.1: 161 statement of P.W.2 in 20, 21 lines.
II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM
FAC. III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,VISKAHAPTNAM
C.C.787/2008
1. Date of Offence : 18-09-2008
2. Date of Repot/Complaint : 01-11-2008
3. Date of Release on bail : 30-09-2008
4. Date of Apprehension of accused : 30-09-2009
5. Date of Commencement of trial : 29-09-2011
6. Date of Close of trial : 13-12-2012
7. Date of Sentence or order : 03-01-2013
8. Explanation for delay and remarks: The delay is due to non production of witnesses. No witness is detained more than three days.
9. Calendar and Judgment Case No. :C.C.787/2008 In the court of III MetropolitanMagistrate , Visakhapatnam.
10. Name of the Complainant : The Sub Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Traffic PS, Visakhapatnam city
11. Name of the accused and his : Sampangi Banu Babu S/o late Appa Rao, 47 years, Settybalija, R/o D.No.3-151/1A, Boravanipalem,Ambedkarcolony, Paradesipalem,Madhuravada Visakhapatnam Driver of RTC Bus AP 9 Z 8227 (Route No.12 K) Maddilapalem Depot.
12. Offence : Punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC.
13. Finding: Accused is found not guilty 14. Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.304-A Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted U/sec.255(1)Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.
II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
FOR RAILWAYS, VISAKHAPATNAM
FAC. III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam
2
3