Page.No.1 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM – JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDIMYADARAM.
PRESENT: SRI N.VENKAT SACHIN REDDY,
Junior Civil Judge-Cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
N A N D I M Y A D A R A M
FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
CC. No.342 of 2023
(Old CC.No.23 of 2016)
Name of the The State through SHO. PS Dharmaram complainant(Cr.No.167 of 2015 of P.S.,Dharmaram).
Name of the accusedAleti Ram Reddy, S/o.Raji Reddy, Aged:59 years, Caste:Reddy, R/o.Dharmaram village and mandal.
CHARGESUnder section 304-A,338 of IPC against sole Accused.
Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court Found not guilty
Sentence or OrderAccused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of IPC, accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid offences. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused are subject to Section 437- A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period. Prosecution conducted Sri. P. Rakesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor by
Accused defended bySri G.Linga Reddy, Counsel for the accused.
Page.No.2 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
This case is coming before this court on 11.09.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri P. Rakesh, Addl. Public Prosecutor (A.P.P), for the State and Sri G.Linga Reddy, Counsel for the Accused, having been heard, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1.The State represented through the Police, Dharmaram filed Police report submitting that the Accused has committed offences punishable under sections 304-A,338 of Indian Penal Code(I.P.C) in Cr.No.
167/2015 of Dharmaram police station (P.S).
2.The case of the prosecution in a nutshell:
(a). On 10.12.2015 at 07.30 hours, that K.Lakshminarayana/PW4, received information from the defacto complainant/Agolapu
Sumalatha/PW1 reporting that her husband/deceased was working as
Harvester machine driver over the Harvester machine of Chokkalla
Thirupathi/LW4 and three days ago her husband went to Venkatapur village of Dandepalli Mandal of Adilabad District to harvest paddy crops through the Harvester machine. Yesterday i.e., on 09-12-2015 when her husband and helper Chokkalla Rakesh/PW3 returned on Hero Honda
Super splendor motorcycle b/No. AP-15-AY-0280 driving by the deceased from Venkatapuram towards Kolimikunta in the night at about 06.45 PM, when reached Banjerupalli Village shivar the driver of the Ritz car B.No TS-02-EC-5973, which is coming in opposite direction to the motorcycle, drove the car in rash and negligent manner with high
Page.No.3 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) speed and dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, resulting the deceased and pillion rider/PW3 sustained severe injuries. PW1 further reported that PW3 informed them about the accident through phone call upon which she along with her brother-in-law Agolapu Raj
Kumar/PW2 and their villager Chokkalla Thirupathi/LW4 went to the spot of accident and observed a deep cut injury on left thigh and severe injuries on knees of the deceased, whereas PW3 received injuries to his left leg and the car due to which accident occurred is halted at some distance from the place of accident. PW1 further reported that while the deceased and PW3 were shifting to Karimnagar Government Hospital, in 108 ambulance, for treatment, at about 8.00PM her husband succumbed on the way and PW3 was admitted in the hospital later.
Later upon inquiry they came to know that the accused is the car driver, thereby lodged the present information with a request to take necessary action against the accused.
(b).On receipt of above petition PW4 has registered a case in Cr.No 167/2015 U/Sec: 304-A, 337 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of
PW1 at PS., in part-II CD and later PW4 visited the Government
Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar and found the dead body of deceased in mortuary room at Karimnagar and got photographed the dead body of deceased with the help of Erroju Ravindrachary/LW5.
Page.No.4 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
Later PW4 secured the presence of Thallapalli Srinivas/PW5 and
Malyala Sathaiah/LW10 as panchas, observed the dead body of deceased and held inquest before them, during the inquest he examined and recorded the statements of PW2,PW3,LW4 and LW5 in part-II CDs and subjected the corpse for autopsy. Accordingly the Medical
Officer/Dr.Lavanya, CAS/LW12 has conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased. After completion of PME, the corpse was handed over to relatives for cremation. Later the PW4 visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of Azmeera Swamy/LW7 and Dumpa Ravi/LW8 and observed the scene of offence and incorporated the observation under crime details form. The Medical officer/LW12 held autopsy over the deceased and issued detail PME report, in which, she opined that the death of deceased as "Haemorrhagic shock due to deep lacerations on left leg thigh region". The Motor Vehicle Inspector/D.Manohar/LW13 has inspected crime vehicle and issued report in which he opined that "the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicles". Dr.Desai Moudhalya Kumar/LW11 treated the injured/PW3 and issued MC opining grievous injury.
(c).It is further submitted that while efforts were in progress, on 12- 11-2015 at 08.30 hours, the accused came to PS., along with Aleti
Venugopal/owner of the crime vehicle/LW6 and surrendered himself
before PW4, upon which the PW4 took him into custody and
Page.No.5 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) interrogated and during the interrogation it is submitted that the accused had voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. Later
PW4 checked his Driving License and other documents of crime vehicle and found all the documents of crime vehicle to be genuine and updated. Later the PW4 examined and recorded the statement of LW6 in part-II CD.
(d).Upon conclusion of the investigation PW4 filed the present charge sheet submitting that the accused has drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the motorcycle of the deceased resulting a death and grievous injuries to PW3 thereby accused committed offences punishable U/Sec. 304-A, 338 of IPC.
3.Upon perusal of the record, this court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.304-A,338 of IPC and issued summons to the accused.
4.On appearance of the accused, copies were furnished to him as per the provisions of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.
5.Accused was examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the offence
U/Sec.304-A,338 of IPC which were levelled against him. Accusations for the said offences are read and explained to him in Telugu language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW5, EX.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked through prosecution. The prosecution has failed to produce LW4 to LW9, LW11 to LW13 as such this court has closed
Page.No.6 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) their evidence. Further the learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of
LW10.
7.Upon perusal of record and upon incriminating material found, the accused was examined as per the provisions of section 313 Cr.P.C.
All the incriminating material against the accused is read and explained to him in Telugu Language, for which he denied, maintained innocence and submitted that he do not have any evidence on his behalf. Thereby
Defense evidence is closed as nil.
8.Heard both sides and perused all the material available on record.
9.Now the point that arises for determination is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
Accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A,338 of
IPC, beyond all reasonable doubts?”
P O I N T:
To prove the offence alleged against accused the prosecution has to prove the necessary ingredients of Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC for conviction of the accused. In the present case the prosecution has to prove
(a). the death of the deceased is caused by the accused while doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide and if the prosecution succeeds in proving so, the accused is liable to punished
Page.No.7 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) with imprisonment of either description for a period of 2 years or with fine or with both as per provisions of Sec.304-A of IPC.
(b). further a grievous hurt is caused to PW3 by the accused while doing any rash or negligent act as to endanger his life or personal safety of others and if the prosecution succeeds in proving so, the accused is liable to punished with imprisonment of either description for a period of 2 years or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both as per provisions of Sec.338 of IPC.
10.To prove the above said offences alleged to have been committed by the accused, the learned A.P.P examined the wife of the deceased/defacto complainant/LW1 as PW1 and original report dated 10.12.2015 is marked as Ex.P1. Further LW2 is examined as PW2,
LW3/injured is examined as PW3, LW14/investigation officer is examined as PW4, Ex.P2 to Ex.P7 were marked through him. LW9 who is reported to be panch witness for inquest panchanama dated 10.12.2015 is examined as PW5 and his signature appearing on Ex.P4 is marked as Ex.P8.
11.(a) PW1, in her chief deposed that deceased namely Mallesh is her husband, PW2 is her brother-in-law, She know PW3 and LW4. She further deposed that the deceased used to work as harvester driver belonging to Choppari Thirupathi/LW4 and when the deceased was returning from Dandepalli on 9/12/2015 at about 6.30 PM on his
Page.No.8 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) motorcycle along with PW3, met with an accident in Banjerupalli village and she was informed by LW4 about the accident. PW1 further deposed that upon the information immediately she along with PW2 went to the spot of the accident and found that her husband/deceased with left leg knee injury and while shifting him to Karimnagar for treatment he succumbed on the way and PW3 sustained left leg injury.
(b).PW1 further deposed that at the spot of accident at some distance she found a car vide registered No. TS-02-EC-5973 but she did not find the driver of the said car and PW3 informed her that accident was caused by the said car. She lodged the report on the next day of the accident and she was examined and her statement was recorded by police.
(c).PW1, when cross examined, by counsel for the accused, she admitted that by the time they reached to the spot of the accident it was dark and deposed that the spot of accident is a main road. She denied that the said car is no way concerned with the accident.
12(a). PW2, in his chief deposed that, deceased is his younger brother and he know PW3 and LW4. PW2 further deposed that deceased used to work as harvester driver belonging to Chokkalla Thirupathi/LW4 and when the deceased went to Dandepalli village for attending harvesting work on 09.12.2015 along with PW3 on his motorcycle and while returning on the same day at about 06.45 PM they met with an
Page.No.9 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) accident, in which a car has hit the motorcycle of the deceased. PW2 further deposed that LW4 informed him about the accident, immediately he along with PW1, LW4 started to the spot of the accident, but when they reached Mallapur village they saw the ambulance with his brother.
(b).PW2 further deposed that he saw his brother sustained injury on left leg and PW3 sustained injury on his right leg and while his brother was shifting to Karimnagar Government Civil Hospital for treatment he succumbed on the way. PW2 further deposed that on enquiry they came to know that one Areddy Ram Reddy was the driver of the car with which accident took place.
(c).When PW2 was cross examined, by the counsel for the accused, he deposed that after 2 days of the accident, he came to know the name of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. He denied that he do not know the name of the driver of the crime vehicle and he did not enquire. He further denied that accused is no way concerned with the accident and this case.
13(a). PW3, in his chief deposed that, LW4 is his father and one
Chokkalla Thirupathi is the owner of the harvester, deceased is a driver of the harvesting vehicle belonging to LW4, he used to help the deceased during the harvesting work. PW3 deposed that on 09/12/2015 at about 06.45 PM, when he along with deceased went to Venkatapur of
Page.No.10 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
Dandepalli Mandal for attending harvesting work and while were returning on the same day on the motorcycle belonging of LW4 and reached Banjerupalli village, a car with a high speed has hit their motorcycle, due to which he and deceased fall down from the motorcycle and the car passed through the left leg of the deceased, due to which there was cut injury on the left leg of the deceased. PW3 then he called and informed to his friends and also PW2. PW1, PW2 and LW4 came to the spot of the accident and shifted them in an ambulance to
Hospital.
(b).PW3 further deposed that later he came to know that on enquiry by the owner of the harvester the registered number of car is TS-02-EC- 5973 and the accused was driving the said car at the time of the accident. PW3 identified the accused standing in the court hall as the driver of the said car at the time of the accident. PW3 sustained the left leg fracture injury and took the treatment in the hospital for one week.
(c).PW3 in his cross Examination, by Learned Counsel for Accused, deposed that by the time they reached Dharmaram Village it was dark and for reaching Choppadandi from Dharmaram, they have to proceed on left side. PW3 denied that on the date of alleged incident they were in drunken condition and hit to the tree on right side of the road and further denied that accused is no way concerned with the accident and this case.
Page.No.11 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
(d).PW3 was further Cross examined on petition vide Crl.M.P No.88 of 2024 which was allowed on 19.04.2024, in which he deposed that chokkalla Thirupathi/LW4 is his father and the name of owner of the harvester is also Thirupathi who is different person. He denied that the owner of the harvester by name Thirupathi and his father by name
Thirupathi are one and same. He further denied that he did not state to police that he has seen the driver of the vehicle involved in alleged accident and that he will identify the driver. He further denied that he did not state to police the number of the car involved in the alleged accident. PW3 deposed that number of the car is TS 02 EC 5973. He denied that he is stating the car number on the instance of police and deposed that he do not know the company of the car. He admitted that at the time of accident it was dark but denied that they have collided to tree and that no accident took place. He further denied that accused is no where concerned with the alleged accident and that they have filed this case for compensation as such foisted the car in this case.
14(a). PW4, in his chief deposed about his investigation which is on lines of the charge sheet filed by him and when he was cross examined by counsel for the accused, he deposed that he do not know how the witnesses came to know the name of accused. He further deposed that
LW4 is the owner of harvester and denied that the crime vehicle was not present at the place of incident at the time of incident and that the
Page.No.12 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) registration number of crime vehicle cannot be identified as it was dark.
He added to his deposition that it was not that dark at 6.45 pm.
(b). PW4 admitted that PW3 did not state to him about the identity details of the accused and that PW3 did not state to him that he has seen the accused and that he can identify the accused.
(c). PW4 deposed that the accident took place on the left side of the road which is going towards Karimnagar and denied that he did not examine
LW4 and that he did not record his statement. PW4 added to his deposition that LW4 was examined at Government Hospital,
Karimnagar. He further denied that accused is no way concerned with the accident and that he is falsely implicated in this case. PW4 denied that PW3 and deceased were in drunken stage and that dashed to a tree and that filed a false case to claim insurance money.
15.PW5, in his chief deposed that, on 10.12.2015 at 08.30 to 10.00 am police has conducted panchanama over the body of deceased by name Egulla Mallesham in his presence at Area Hospital,Karimnagar and further deposed that the deceased succumbed in a motor vehicle accident. When PW5 cross examined by the counsel for the accused, he admitted that he and deceased belong to same village and denied that panchanama is not conducted in his presence. He further denied that as the deceased belong to his village he is deposing false.
Page.No.13 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
16. During the course of arguments,the learned A.P.P presented the case by briefing about the facts of the case and stressed that PW3 is the eye witness and injured in the present case who deposed that the accused drove the car in high speed and hit the motorcycle. The learned
A.P.P submitted that PW3 is the injured and credible witness deposed in favour of the prosecution and further he identified the accused in open court. Further there are no procedural latches on their side and the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts.
17. Per Contra, the counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution could examine only 5 witnesses out of 14 in which the doctors and the motor vehicle inspector has not been examined by the prosecution and further it is unknown how the witnesses has got to know the name of the accused. Counsel further argued that PW3 has not given the identity particulars of the accused in any earlier instances and further
PW3 is the son of the owner of the harvester as such he is an interested witness in this case. Counsel further argued that the identity details of the accused cannot be elicited properly as it was dark at the time of the accident and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all the reasonable doubts.
18. In view of several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in order to prove the offence under section 304A of IPC, the prosecution
Page.No.14 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) must establish at first, the identity of the accused that is, the fact that accused was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Secondly, the rashness or negligence on the part of accused in driving the said vehicle. Further the death of the injured must also be proved to have been caused in the manner suggested by the prosecution.
19.From the evidence of PW1 it is observed that LW4 informed her about the accident and immediately she along with PW2 and LW4 went the spot of the accident and found the deceased and PW3 with injuries.
On the other hand PW2 deposed that upon the information from LW4,
PW1,PW2 along with LW4 started to the spot of the accident, which is
Banjerupalli village, but when they reached Mallapur village they have seen the ambulance, in which the deceased was shifted to Karimnagar
Government Hospital, which is inconsistent with the deposition of PW1 as PW1 deposed that they reached the spot of accident and at some distance from the spot she found a car vide Regd.No.TS 02 EC 5973 which PW3 informed that the accident was caused with the said car. On the other hand from the deposition of PW2 they did not reach the spot of the accident as such they cannot be witnessing the said car or other vehicle which caused the accident. Further from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 the identity particulars of the accused is not established as they are circumstantial witnesses. Though PW2 deposed that on enquiry he came to know that the accused was the driver of the car,
Page.No.15 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) with which accident took place, but failed to depose from whom or how in particular he came to know the details of the accused. Further the contents of Ex.P1 discloses that PW1 and others came to know the name of the accused upon enquiry which they failed to depose about the said enquiry by them. Further PW4 deposed that he do not know how the witnesses came to know the name of the accused. Accordingly this court does not believe the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as to the extent of identity of the accused and also the crime vehicle.
20.From the testimony of PW3/injured it is observed that PW3 deposed that when they reached Banjerupalli village a car with high speed has hit their motorcycle due to which they fell down and the car passed through the left leg of the deceased due to which there was a cut injury on the left leg of the deceased. From the evidence of PW3 it is further observed that, on enquiring the owner of the harvester he came to know about the car registration number and that the accused was driving the said car at the time of accident. Further PW4 admitted that
PW3 did not state to him about the identity details of the accused. At this juncture this court considers it is not necessary to any victim and a eye witness at the time of accident, to know the name and other details of the person who drove the offending vehicle. In the present case PW3 is injured and eye-witness, he further remained firm in his cross examination and denied that he did not state to police that he has seen
Page.No.16 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016) the driver of the vehicle involved in the alleged accident and to corroborate the same he has identified the accused in open court which this court, considers PW3 to be credible witness. Accordingly in view of the above discussion relying on the testimony of PW3, this court considers that the identity of the accused is established and that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident.
21.Regarding attributing rash or negligent act on the accused, none of the witnesses apart from PW3 has witnessed the accident. PW3 in his deposition stated that the offending vehicle with high speed has hit their motorcycle. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in many instances opined that mere driven at a high speed does not bespeak of either "negligence or rashness" by itself. The prosecution shall establish such high speed is an act of rash or negligence act of the accused. Upon perusing the material on record, it is clear that an inference of act of rashness or negligence cannot be drawn from a simple testimony of the
PW3 that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as the prosecution has failed to lead specific evidence in order to prove the same. Though the unmarked certificate of the motor vehicle inspector/LW13 discloses that the accident is not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles, itself is not sufficient to attribute rash or negligence act on the part of accused and further there is no other specific evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Page.No.17 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
Significantly, in this regard the courts have persistently avowed that merely driving a vehicle with high speed does not denote driving the vehicle rashly and negligently as such no culpability can be attributed to a driver of a vehicle merely for the reason that the offending was being driven in high speed. Upon perusal of material on record this
Court observes that there is no clear evidence on record to show that the death of the deceased was a direct cause of the rash or negligent act on the part of the accused as the deposition of PW3 is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the high speed of the accused, in this case, amounts to rash or negligence act. In such circumstances this court has no other option rather than to give benefit of doubt to the accused.
22. In view of the above discussion, though the counsel for the accused posed question about the death of the deceased caused as they hit to a tree, as PW3 remained firm that the accused hit their motorcycle, this court comes to the finding that the accused drove the offending vehicle at the time of accident with which the death of deceased is caused and the identity of the accused is established. On the other-hand the prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act of the accused caused the death of the deceased and injuries to PW3, as such this court considers that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly the point is answered against the prosecution.
Page.No.18 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
23. IN THE RESULT, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 304-A, 338 of IPC, accordingly, he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid offences.
The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused are subject to
Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.
The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.
Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
Junior Civil Judge – cum -
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Nandimyadaram.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:
PW-1 Agolapu Sumalatha -None-
PW-2 Agolapu Raj Kumar
PW-3 Chokkalla Rakesh
PW-4 K.Lakshminarayana
PW-5 Thallapalli Srinivas
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1The original report by PW1
Page.No.19 of 19 JCJ-cum-JMFC, Nandimyadaram
CC No. 342 of 2023 (Fair)
(Old CC No.23 of 2016)
Ex.P2First Information Report(FIR) by PW4
Ex.P3CDF Panchanama by PW4
Ex.P4Inquest report by PW4
Ex.P5PME report by PW4
Ex.P6Injury certificate by PW4
Ex.P7Photos along with CD by PW4
Ex.P8Signature on inquest by PW5
FOR THE DEFENCE:
-Nil-
MATERIAL OBJECTS
-Nil-
Sd/-
Junior Civil Judge – cum -
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
Nandimyadaram.