CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
AT KOTHAGUDEM.
Present: Smt. N. RADHIKA, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem.
(Thursday, the 27 th day of December, 2018.)
C.C.No. 259 of 2012
(Cr. No. 37 of 2012 of P.S. Chandrugonda)
Between: The State,Through Sub-Inspector of Police
P.S. Chandrugonda.... Complainant.
AND
Lavudya Ramesh, S/o late Hemala, Age: 35 Yrs, Occ: Railway Department (Electrical), R/o Bajana Mandhiram of Kothagudem mandal, N/o Mekala Thanda of Karepalli mandal. … Accused
-o0o-
This case coming before me on 20-12-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.B.Prema Latha, the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri G.V Prasad, learned Counsel for the Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :- :J U D G M E N T:
1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandrugonda P.S has filed charge sheet against the above noted Accused for the offence U/sec. 304-A of I.P.C, and
Sec. 181, 196 and 133/177 of M.V. Act, 1988 in Cr. No: 37 of 2012 with a prayer to punish the Accused for the alleged offence.
2.Brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-
a)On 24-04-2012 when the deceased by name Akula
Venkateswarlu, member of musical troop along with P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and
P.W.7 who are other musical troop members were returning to home by walk, and when they reached to near Vaternity hospital, Chandrugonda,
Pg No. 1 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
meantime the Accused who was coming on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 36
P 7305 drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased due to which the deceased fell on the road and sustained head injury and the Accused also fell down and received injuries. At that time
P.W.1 who is brother of deceased coming on that way shifted the deceased and Accused to hospital and while shifting, the deceased was succumbed to injuries.
b) On 25-04-2012 P.W.1 lodged a report with the police basing on which
F.I.R in Cr. No. 37 of 2012 was registered U/s.304-A of IPC. Police took up investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, drawn rough sketch and prepared Crime Details Form. Thereafter, PW.10 secured P.M.E report of deceased.
c) On 04-05-2012, Accused was arrested and on verification of the documents, it is found that, the Accused was not having relevant document, so also, original driving license. Basing on the investigation, Investigation
Officer filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable
U/sec. 304-A, of I.P.C and Sec. 181, 196,133 and 177 of MV Act. Hence, the case.
3.On receipt of the Charge sheet, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A, of I.P.C and Sec. 181 & 196 of MV Act against the Accused and issued summons to the Accused. On appearance of the Accused, copies of case records as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C. have been supplied to him.
4.Accused was examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. by explaining the substance of the accusation constituting an offence punishable 304-A, of I.P.C and Sec.
181 & 196 of MV Act, 1988, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the trial, the prosecution got examined PW.1 to PW.12 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P6 through them.
Pg No. 2 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was examined
U/s. 313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material found against him, he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard both sides. Perused the record 8.Now the Points germane for my determination are:
i) Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt
of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence
punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C ?
ii) Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt
of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence
punishable under sections Sec. 181 & 196 of MV Act 1988?
9. POINT NO. (I)
“Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt
of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence
punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C” ?
9.1In order to convict the Accused for the above said offences, the prosecution has to establish that on 24-04-12 the Accused, being the rider of motor cycle bearing No. AP 36 P 7305 drove it in rash or negligent manner, hit the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu, as a result, the deceased was succumbed to injuries.
9.2In order to establish the offence against the Accused U/sec 304-A
IPC, the prosecution has to prove that on 24-04-2012 the Accused drove his vehicle bearing No. AP 36 P 7305 in a rash or negligent manner and hit the deceased near vaternity hospital situated at Chandrugonda due to which the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu sustained head injury and died. So, the essential elements to be proved by the prosecution are that i) Accident & death of the deceased, ii) Identity of the Accused and iii) Rash or Negligent driving of the Accused.
Pg No. 3 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
9.3In order to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offences stated supra, the prosecution has placed its reliance upon the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.12, coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. P.W.1 is the Complainant & brother of the deceased, P.W.2 is the wife of deceased and circumstantial witness,
P.W.3 to P.W.5 & P.W.7 are the eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.6 is the panch witness for inquest and CDF. P.W.8 is the photographer. P.W.9 and
P.W.10 are the Investigation officer. P.W.11 is the Medical officer who conducted autopsy and P.W.12 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. This Court has gone through the evidence of prosecution witnesses and exhibits exhibited.
The testimonies of both the prosecution witnesses are very much available on record in the form of deposition and thus it is not necessary to reproduce them same again in the Judgment. However before going into merits of the case it is just and proper to know the gist of the their testimonies.
10 ACCIDENT AND DEATH:
10.1The first and foremost thing to be proved by the prosecution is that causing of road accident to the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu which results into his death. P.W.1 deposed that about two years ago his brother/deceased Akula Venkateswarlu went to a marriage function along with music troop and after completion of marriage function, his brother returned along with his troop by foot, and when they reached near vaternary hospital at Chandrugonda, by that time he & P.W.7 were going from Ayyanapalem and proceeding towards Chandrugonda on his motor cycle and they heard one sound indicating an accident. P.W.1 further deposed that he saw the Accused fell down from the motor bike and also the deceased Venkateswarlu lying on the road, both were unconscious, he along with other troop members shifted the Accused and the deceased
Venkateswarlu to the Government area hospital, Kothagudem where the
Doctors declared the Venkateswarlu as died.
10.2It is the evidence of P.W.2 that about six years ago on one day her husband Venkateswarlu along with P.W.3 to P.W.5 went to
Chandrugonda to play saxaphone in a marriage function and after completion of work they returned to their village at 9 PM by walk. P.W.2
Pg No. 4 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
further deposed that when they reached near vaternary hospital situated at
Chandrugonda one bike came from their back side and gave hit to the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu, as a result he fell down on road and sustained head injury. P.W.2 further deposed that having known about the accident from P.W.7, she went to scene of offence and found the deceased
Venkateswarlu with severe bleeding injuries to his head and he was un- conscious. P.W.2 further deposed that she along with P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 shifted her husband and the Accused to the Government Area
Hospital, Kothagudem for treatment and Doctors declared Akula
Venkateswarlu as died.
10.3The evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 is that on the date of accident when they along with the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu and P.W.7 went to
Chandrugonda for playing saxaphone at marriage function and after completion of work they returned to the village at 9.30 PM by walk. It is the further evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 when they reached near to vaternary hospital, at Chandrugonda one bike came from their back side and hit the deceased at high speed, as a result the deceased fell on the road and received head injury. It is the further evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 that the bike rider also fell down and received injury on his face. It is further evidence of
P.W.3 to P.W.5 that they along with P.W.2 and P.W.7 shifted the deceased and bike rider to the Government area hospital, Kothagudem for treatment.
10.4 It is the evidence of P.W.7 that on 24-04-2012 at 9 PM, he along with P.W.1 were going to Chandrugonda from Ayyanapalem on his bike to get the groceries, when they reached near Vaternary hospital at
Chandrugonda, they have seen the deceased walking on the road along with others. It is further evidence of P.W.7 that at that time one Platinum bike bearing No. AP 36 P 7305 came from the back side of the deceased at high speed and gave hit to him and as a result the deceased fell down and received injuries on his head. P.W.7 further deposed that bike rider also fell down and received injuries, he informed about the accident to P.W.2 and immediately P.W.2 came there and they shifted the deceased and bike rider to the Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem in an auto and Doctors declared the deceased as died.
Pg No. 5 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
10.5It is the evidence of P.W.8 that in the year 2012 in the morning hours at the request of police, he went to hospital and took the photographs on the male body pertaining to the case.
10.6P.W.9/ Investigating officer testified that on 25.04.2012 basing on the report filed by P.W.1 he registered a case in Cr. No. 37/2012 and issued
FIR under Ex.P.4. P.W.9 further deposed that he got photographed the body of the deceased through P.W.8, conducted inquest in the presence of P.W.6 and L.W.9-Venkateswarlu under Ex.P.2, got conducted the post mortem examination through P.W.11-Medical officer. P.W.9 further deposed that he visited the scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form under Ex.P.3 and got inspected the crime vehicle through P.W.12, Motor vehicle inspector. P.W.6 who is the panch wintess for inquest panchanama deposed that on 25-04-2012 police conducted inquest panchanama under Ex.P.2 over the dead body of the deceased in his presence and he signed on it.
P.W.6 further deposed that he found injuries on the head of the deceased and he is of the opinion that the deceased received injuries in the road accident. P.W.11 is the medical officer who conducted post mortem examination deposed that on 25-04-2012 he conducted post mortem examination and found contusion wound measuring 4x5 inches over occipital area. The cause of death to the best of his knowledge is “Cardio
Respiratory arrest due to head injury and accordingly he issued Post
Mortem Examination report under Ex.P.6.
10.7From the cross examination P.W.1 to P.W.9 and P.W.11, it is not the case of the Accused that the Accident was not occurred and the deceased was not died in the road accident. So, from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7, P.W.9 and P.W.11 coupled with Ex.P.1-report, P.2-Inquest
Panchanama, P.4-First Information Report and P.6 Post Mortem Report, it is clear that the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu died in a road accident that occurred on 24-04-2012 near Vaternary hospital, Chandrugonda. Hence, the prosecution succeeded in proving the death of the deceased in a road accident.
Pg No. 6 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
11.IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED:
11.1 The second element to be proved by the prosecution is that identification of the Accused, that is to say Accused being the rider of crime vehicle on 25-04-2012 hit the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu with his vehicle due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and died.
11.2P.W.1 deposed that on the date of accident he found the deceased and Accused fell down with injuries and he along with P.W.7 shifted the Accused and the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu to the
Government Hospital, Kothagudem and the Accused took treatment in the said hospital. In the cross examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he omitted to state before the police as well as in Ex.P.1 report that he and
PW.7 and other troop members shifted the deceased Venkateswarlu and
Accused to the Government hospital, Kothagudem by auto. P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that he did not state before the police as well as in
Ex.P.1 report about the name and descriptive particulars of the Accused.
11.3It is the evidence of P.W.2 that on knowing about the accident, she went to the scene of offence, found the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu with bleeding injuries to his head and shifted the deceased Venkateswarlu and the bike driver to the Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem for treatment. It is the further evidence of P.W.2 that she has seen the bike driver at the time of incident and the Accused is the same person. In the cross examination P.W.2 admitted that she did not state to police that she has seen the bike driver, she can identify him and she enquired the name and particulars of the bike driver. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that she never seen the Accused at the place of incident.
11.4It is the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 that immediately after the accident, they shifted the deceased Venkateswarlu and bike driver to the
Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem for treatment. P.W.3 to P.W.5 further deposed that they have seen the bike driver at the palce of incident and the Accused is the same person who drove the bike. In the cross
Pg No. 7 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
examination P.W.3 deposed that he stated to the police about the name of
Accused and he can identify the Accused if shown to him. In the cross examination P.W.4 deposed that he stated to the police that they shifted the
Accused also to the hospital along with the deceased. P.W.4 denied the suggestion that he did not state to the police about the name and descriptive particulars of Accused. P.W.5 further deposed that the crime vehicle is 7305 and it is Platinum bike. It is the further evidence of P.W.5 that he can identify the bike driver and the Accused is the same person and drove the vehicle at the time of incident. Ins the cross examination, P.W.5 denied the suggestion that he did not state to the police about the name and particulars of the Accused. P.w.5 further deposed that he has no prior acquaintance with the Accused and he stated to Police that he shifted
Accused also along with deceased to the hospital.
11.5P.W.7 deposed that immediately after the accident they shifted the deceased and bike driver to the Government Area Hospital,
Kothagudem in an auto and he identified the Accused as the driver. In cross examination P.W.7 admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 report about the name of Accused and identity particulars and he does not have prior acquaintance with the Accused. P.W.3 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 denied the suggestion that they do not know the manner of accident and never seen the Accused at the place of accident.
12The learned counsel for Accused would contend that there is no corroboration between the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 with regard to identity of Accused at the time of accident. It is also contended that from the cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.7 it is clear that P.W.1 and
P.W.7 were not present at the place of accident and they implicated the
Accused in this offence.
13It is true P.W.1 deposed that he along with P.W.7 came to the place of accident on bike. It is true P.W.3 to P.W.5 deposed that they along with P.W.7 and the deceased were going on the road and they saw the accident occurred. It is also true P.W.7 deposed that he along with P.W.1 on the date of accident went to Ayyanapalem village for grocery and they
Pg No. 8 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
returned to their village and they have seen the accident. In this case the accident was occurred in the year 2012, P.W.1 gave evidence in the year 2014 and P.W.2 to P.W.5 gave evidence in the year 2018. Hence, there is gap of four to six years from the date of accident and giving evidence
before the Court. Hence, the probability of getting omissions in the
evidence cannot be ruled out. Every omission is not a material contradiction to the case of prosecution unless it goes to the root of the prosecution case.
P.W.7 categorically deposed that he informed to P.W.2 and immediately
P.W.2 came there and they shifted the deceased to Akula Venkateswarlu and the Accused to the Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem and P.W.2 also deposed as such. Further, P.W.1 categorically deposed in his cross examination that he & P.W.7 came to the place of accident ten minutes after the accident. P.W.1 to P.W.7 in one voice deposed that they shifted the deceased and Accused to the hospital. Moreover, except getting the admission in the cross examination of P.W.9 that P.W.3 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 did not state before him about the descriptive particulars of the Accused, nothing could be elicited to discard and to disbelieve their testimonies with regard to identity of the Accused at the time of accident.
13.1P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 categorically stated that they shifted the Accused to the hospital along with the deceased. It is not the case of the Accused that he is not the owner of the crime vehicle, he did not receive the injuries, he was not shifted to Government Area Hospital,
Kothagudem and he did not took the treatment. Further, it is not the case of the Accused that accident is a hit and run case and there is no probability to P.W.3 to P.W.5 to see the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.7 with regard to Accused receiving injuries, shifted him to the hospital, the Accused took treatment and identity of
Accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident are credible and trustworthy. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Prosecution could succeeded in proving the identity of the Accused as a driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.
Pg No. 9 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
14.RASH OR NEGLIGENT ACT:
14.1The final aspect to be proved by the prosecution is that due to the rash or negligent driving of the Accused only, the deceased Akula
Venkateswarlu died. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that Accused drove the vehicle in rash or negligent manner and hit the deceased. In the cross examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the Accused is no way concerned with this case and he was falsely implicated with an intention to claim compensation. P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that he does not know the Accused and his rash and negligent driving and he did not cause the accident. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that the accident took place due to the negligence of the Accused. In the cross examination P.W.3 denied the suggestion that it is false to say that due to the negligence of the Accused the accident took place. P.W.3 further denied the suggestion that he does not know the manner of accident and Accused is no way concerned with this case. It is the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Accused, the accident occurred. In the cross examination P.W.4 and P.W.5 deposed that they stated to police that due to rash or negligent driving of the Accused, the accident took place. P.W.4 &
P.W5 denied the suggestion that they do not know the manner of the accident and the Accused is no way concerned with the case. It is the evidence of P.W.7 that the Accused drove the crime vehicle at high speed and in negligent manner and gave hit to the deceased. In the cross examination P.W.7 denied the suggestion that he does not know the manner of the accident and Accused is no way concerned with this case. On perusal of evidence of P.W.9, it is evident that the Accused did not confront the above suggestions to P.W.9 14.2P.W.10, who filed charge sheet deposed that on 04-05-2012
Accused came to police station and surrendered before him and admitted his guilt and on that he affected the arrest of the Accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. In cross examination P.W.10 denied the suggestion that Accused never surrendered before him and
Pg No. 10 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
never admitted his guilt. P.w.10 denied the suggestion that he filed charge sheet agaisnt the Accused without verifying the investigation done by P.W.9.
14.3It is the evidence of P.W.12 that on 06-05-2012 on receipt of requisition from SHO P.S Chandrugonda he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No. AP 36 P 7305 at the premises of P.S Chandrugonda and found the vehicles sustained damages as mentioned in column No.8 of his report.
P.W.12 further deposed that the vehicle was taken for road test and found the break system was in satisfactory condition and he was of the opinion that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and issued report accordingly under Ex.P.5.
14.4The learned counsel for Accused would contend that according to the testimonies of P.W.1 to PW.7 one has to cross the police station to go to hospital from the scene of offence. It is also contended that there is delay of 11 hours in giving Ex.P.1 report, this case was foisted against the Accused and prayed the Court to acquit the Accused.
14.5It is true P.W.9 admitted that there is delay of 11 hours in giving
Ex.P.1 report. It is true P.W.1 to P.W.7 categorically deposed in their evidence that one has to cross the Chandrugonda police station to go to hospital. But when any accident occurs, an ordinary prudent person would think about shifting of injured to the hospital at first and thereafter he would think about other things such as giving information to the police. In this case according to the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 Accused was unconscious due to the accident and he was also shifted to the hospital for treatment.
Thus, it shows that P.W.1 to P.W.7 gave their utmost importance to shift the injured to the hospital rather than giving information to the police. Further, when the entire cross examination of P.W.7 is taken as a whole, it is not the case of the Accused that he has inimical terms with P.W.1 to P.W.7. When there are no inimical terms, there is no necessity to P.W.1 to P.W.7 to foist this case against the Accused.
14.6It is the evidence of P.W.12 coupled with Ex.P.5-MVI report, it is clear that vehicle was taken for road test and break system was
Pg No. 11 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
satisfactory. P.W.6 deposed that on 25-04-2012 P.W.9 visited the offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P.3 in his presence along with L.W.9. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.9 that he prepared scene of offence panchanama is corroborated with the evidence of P.W.6. Further, it is not the case of the Accused that the scene of offence was un-clear and there are trenches on the road. Moreover, as per Ex.P.3 Crime Detail Form along with Rough Sketch the accident was occurred at the edge of the road and deceased was pedestrian.
14.7According to P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.w.5 and P.W.5 on the date of incident the deceased returning to his village by walk. It is not the case of the Accused that the deceased proceeding on the road in a wrong direction or crossing the road negligently. From the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 to P.W.5 and P.W.7 it is clear that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased.
Even according to Ex.P.3 Crime Details Form, the scene of offence is not a narrow road and even there are no curves and it is a straight road. Further, it is not the case of the Accused that there is no sufficient lighting on the road. Therefore, there is every chance of clear visibility of deceased to
Accused. As such, the duty casts upon the Accused to take care and caution while driving his vehicle. Here, it is not out of place to mention while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty casts on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians and the drivers are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others.
14.8According to column No.8 of Ex.P.5 Motor Vehicle Inspector
Report the crime vehicle sustained the following damages.
1)Front head light glass cover sprintled,
2)Foot break peddle on the right side broken,
3)Right side handle grip (rubber make) broken on the edge portion (circumference),
4)Front head light doom on the right sustained scratches,
5)Right side bumper rod broken.
Pg No. 12 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
On perusal of the above said damages, it is crystal clear that
Accused drove the vehicle in such a negligent manner resulting not only the deceased but also the Accused fell on the road, received injuries and lost his conscious.
15)In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that on 24-04-2012, the Accused being the driver of the crime vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the deceased Akula Venkateswarlu received head injury and succumbed to said injury and thereby the Accused committed the offence punishable U/sec.
304-A IPC. The Point No.(i) is answered accordingly.
16 POINT NO.(ii)
Whether the prosecution has proved and established the guilt of
the Accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable
under sections Sec. 181 & 196 of MV Act ?
17.The another aspect of the case of the prosecution is that
Accused drove the crime vehicle without having valid driving license and other relevant documents and therefore, the Accused is liable for conviction for the offence U/sec 181 and 196 of M.V Act. P.W.9 & P.W.10 did not depose single word about non-availability of relevant driving documents with the Accused at the time of his surrender. P.W.10 deposed that on 04-05-2012 the Accused surrendered before him and admitted his guilt and on that he affected the arrest of the Accused. But there is no whisper in his evidence about the verification of the documents with the
Accused at the time of his apprehension. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused U/sec 181 and 196 of M.V Act. Point is answered accordingly.
18. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable
U/sec. 304(A) of IPC and accordingly he is convicted U/sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C.
Pg No. 13 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
Further the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable
U/secs 181 and 196 of M.V Act, 1988 and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcriber by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 27thh day of December,
2018.
I Addl. Judl.Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem. QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
19.(i)Heard the Accused with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed against him. The Accused submitted that he is married, he has two daughters and old aged parents and their burden is on his shoulders.
The Accused further submitted that he is working as Electrical technician in
Indian Railway Department, if he put behind bars, his dependents will become orphans and he will loose the job. Accused prayed the Court to take lenient view on him considering the offence proved against him as the first offence.
(ii)The learned counsel appearing for the Accused submitted to extend the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to the Accused and prayed the court to release him under Sec.3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 by admonishing him.
(iii)At this juncture, this court came across the judgment of our
Hon'ble Supreme Court decided in a case State of Punjab Vs.
Balvinder Singh and others 1 , wherein their lordships held as under :
"While considering the quantum of sentence to be
imposed for the offence of causing death or injury by rash and
negligent driving of automobiles one of the prime consideration
should be deterrence. The persons driving motor vehicles cannot
and should not take a chance of thinking that even if he is
convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the court".
iv)Hence, this Court does not find any valid grounds to invoke the
Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Sec.360 Cr.P.C. in favour of the
Accused. The prosecution has not produced any cogent material to show 1 (2012) 2 SCC 182.
Pg No. 14 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
that there are previous convictions to the credit of Accused. By considering the submissions made by the Accused, his employment and other mitigating circumstances put-forth by the Accused, this court is inclined to take a little-bit lenient view in passing the sentence against Accused. By considering the submissions of Accused, the offences proved against him, sentencing the Accused to imprisonment as well as fine would meet the ends of justice.
v)Therefore, the Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of ONE YEAR AND SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500-00 ( Rupees two thousand five hundred only) in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO MONTHS for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) of IPC, Total fine amount is
Rs.2500-00 ( Rupees Two thousand five hundred only).
vi)The default clause of sentence shall run consecutively.
vii)The period of detention already undergone by the Accused during investigation and enquiry (from 06-04-2018 to 09-04-2018 ) shall be given set off under Sec.428 Cr.P.C., against the terms of imprisonment.
viii)Accused was informed about his right to prefer an appeal against the conviction and sentence of this court.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcriber by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27th day of December,
2018 ).
I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTIONFOR ACCUSED
LW-1/PW-1A.Satyanarayana/Complainant
LW-2/PW-2Aakula Neelamma, ::NONE:: wife/circumstantial witness
Pg No. 15 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
LW-5/PW-3Dandugula Rama Rao/Eye witness
LW-3/PW-4Siddila Ramulu /Eye witness
LW-4/PW-5Sk. Pasha/Eye witness
LW-8/PW-6Peddagula Venkata Krishna Rao/Panch for inquest panchanama & Crime Details Form
LW-6/PW-7Vaaradi Sathyanarayana /Circumstantial witness
LW-7/PW-8Sk.Mahamood/Photographer
LW-12/PW.9Y.Venkateswarlu/Investigation officer
LW-13/PW.10Panjala Sarvaiah/Investigation officer
LW-11/PW.11Dr.K.Rammurthy/Medical officer
LW-10/PW.12Dhanraj Bajaj/Motor Vehicle Inspector
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED
Ex.P-1Report given by PW-1
Ex.P-2Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P-3Crime Detail Form :: NIL :: Ex.P-4 First Information Report
Ex.P-5Motor Vehicle Inspection Report
Ex.P-6Post Mortem Examination Report
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
NIL
I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Kothagudem.
Pg No. 16 of 16
CC 259 of 2012Dt: 27-12-2018
Pg No. 17 of 16