1 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
MOBILE COURT : MAHABOOBNAGAR DISTRICT.
PRESENT:- P.B.KIRAN KUMAR,
SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR.
THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 7th DAY OF APRIL, 2022
C.C.No.800 OF 2019
Between :
The State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Police Station, Addakal, Mahaboobbnagar District.
….Complainant. // A n d //
Shaga Lakshmi Devi @ Bugide Lakshmi Devi, W/o Shaga Praveen, Aged: 30 years, Occ: Bank Employee, R/o. H.No.77-55-4-5, Kallur Estate, Chinthalamuni Nagar, Industrial Estate, Kurnool, A.P.
....Accused
*****
This case came before me for fnal hearing on 29-3-2022 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri T.Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following :-
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police station, Addakal fled a charge sheet against the accused person for the ofence under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
2.Brief history of the case as emanated from the prosecution is that :-
On 22.11.2019 at 1200 hours, LW25/SI of Police received a report from LW1/Kummari Venkataiah in which he stated that on the same day, at about 0800 hours, he and his relatives left from their house in a Toofan vehicle bearing No.AP22TA-0796 to attend bridal glances at Kothakota village and while they were proceeding on National Highway No.44 road and when they reached Addakal Shivar, one car driver bearing Car
No.MH03CM-1678 came from Kurnool with rash and negligent manner, lost control over her car and hit to divider, as a result, car turned turtle 2 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
and dashed to the said Toofan vehicle, due to which, he and the inmates received bleeding injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to S.V.S
Hospital and some injured to Kothakota and while shifting on the way, the driver of the Toofan vehicle Kummari Srinivasulu succumbed to injuries and as such, he requested to take necessary action.
Basing on the above said report, the LW25/SI of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.73 of 2019 under section 304-A and 337 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW25/SI of Police examined and recorded the statement of the complainant/PW1, rushed to the spot which is located near 119/4 kilometer stone in the limits of
Addakal village on National Highway No.44 road, secured two mediators and drafted sketch of crime scene. Later, he visited the Government
General Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, observed the dead body of the deceased and took the photographs, held inquest over the dead body by securing two mediators and handed over the dead body to the medical officer for autopsy. In the mean time, LW25/SI of Police examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses.
On 23.11.2019, LW25/SI of Police received information that the son of accused namely Master Novansh died while undergoing treatment at
KIMS Hospital and shifted the dead body to Government General Hospital,
Mahaboobnagar, immediately, he rushed there, took photographs of the dead body of the deceased boy, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of two mediators and later handed over the same to the medical officer for autopsy and he also examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses.
On 18.12.2019, the accused person came to the police station and surrendered before LW25/SI of police and she confessed to have committed this ofence and later released her on bail after obtaining sufficient sureties. After collecting Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report and 3 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
Postmortem Examination report of the deceased persons and after completion of investigation, LW25/SI of police laid charge sheet against the accused for the ofences under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC.
3.This court took cognizance for the ofences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC against the accused.
4.After appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet and other documents were furnished to the accused as required under section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the accused under section 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation levelled against the accused for the ofence under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC, for which she pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
5.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P17.
6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating evidence available against the accused person, for which she denied the same.
None were examined on behalf of the accused.
7.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that PWs.6 and 10 clearly identifed the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time and PWs.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 supported the version of the prosecution case. She also contended that the evidence of PW.14 clearly shows that the police conducted CDF panchanama at the scene and the evidence of PWs.11 and 17 discloses about conducting of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased persons. She also contended that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 5 and 7 to 9 clearly shows that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a negligent manner and with high speed and dashed to the divider, as a result, the crime vehicle jumped from other side lane 4 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
and fell on the opposite vehicle, which was proceeding in another lane, due to which, the deceased/Srinivaslulu and son of accused died and
PWs.1, 3 to 10 received simple injuries and LW.9/Narayana received grievous injuries. Lastly, she contended that the prosecution successful in establishing that the accused is the responsible for the death of the deceased persons and sustaining of grievous and simple injuries to the injured persons and hence prayed this court to punish the accused in accordance with law.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused contended that
PWs.1 to 10 are the family members of the deceased and they simply stated about the death of the deceased/Srinivasulu. The learned counsel
for the accused further contended that PWs.6 and 10 failed to state
before the police that they can identify the accused when they see her
and as such, identifcation of the accused before the court cannot be given much importance. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the prosecution failed to produce the vehicles involved in the accident and the evidence of PW.15 shows that he inspected both vehicles involved in the accident and non production of the same is fatal to the prosecution case. The learned counsel for the accused further pointed out that the driving of the vehicle with high speed on National
Highways cannot be termed as rash or negligent driving of the vehicle.
Lastly, he contended that this case was foisted against the accused only to claim compensation and as such, he argued that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he prayed this court to acquit the accused by giving beneft of doubt to the accused.
9.After hearing arguments of both sides, the points that arose for determination in this case are: - 5 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
1.Whether the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased persons and sustaining of simple and grievous injuries to the injured persons in a road traffic accident beyond all reasonable doubt?
2.Whether the prosecution could able to establish that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and caused accident beyond all reasonable doubt?
3.Whether the prosecution established that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and caused the accident resulting the death of the deceased persons and receiving of simple and grievous injuries to the injured persons beyond all reasonable doubt?
10. Point No.1:-
To establish the death of the deceased persons and also receiving of simple injuries to PWs.1, 3 to 10 and grievous injury to LW.9/Narayana in a road accident, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of
PWs.1 to 10 along with PW.16 coupled with the evidence of PW.17.
Coming to the evidence of PW.1, he testifed that on 22.11.2019 at about 8.00 or 9.00 AM he along with other witnesses were going to Kothakota village in a Toofan vehicle bearing No.AP22TA-796 and when their vehicle crossed Addakal village, one car came in opposite direction and proceeding in another lane, dashed to divider, jumped and fell on their car, due to which, they all received bleeding injuries and their driver
Srinivasulu died on the spot. He also received bleeding injuries to his mouth and other persons received bleeding and fracture injuries. In the cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the driver of their car and one boy aged three years who was travelling in the crime vehicle died in the said accident. But nothing was elicited to disprove the testimony of PW1 about 6 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
death of deceased persons Srinivasulu and Novansh and also receiving of injuries to him and other persons.
11. PW2 testifed that his son was driving the Toofan vehicle at the time of accident and PW1 along with their family members went to
Kothakota village to attend a marriage alliance and when the said vehicle passed Addakal village one car came in opposite direction in another lane, dashed to the divider and jumped and fell on their car, due to which, his son Srinivasulu died on the spot and other passengers received bleeding injuries. In the cross-examination, no useful material elicited from the evidence of PW2 to discredit his testimony about the death of the deceased/Srinivasulu.
12. PW3 who is said to be injured and eyewitness to the incident testifed that on 22.11.2019 at about 10.00 AM he along with PWs.1 and 2 and other witnesses in all 10 members including him and driver
K.Srinivasulu went to Kothakota village in a TATA Sumo vehicle. He also deposed that when their vehicle crossed Addakal village, one car came in opposite direction in another lane, dashed to their car, due to which, their car turned turtle and they all received bleeding injuries. He received bleeding injuries on his chest and the driver Srinivasulu died on the spot.
LW.6 Shankaraiah received fracture injuries to his ribs on right side and
LW9.K.Narayana received fracture injuries to his leg and others also received injuries. Later, they were shifted to Addakal hospital,
Mahaboobnagar and from there to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar. It is to be noted that PW.3 stated they were travelling in Tata Sumo Vehicle at the time of accident, but his evidence clearly shows about the death of the deceased and as such, much importance need not be given to the said omission. Moreover, though PW.3 was cross-examined nothing was 7 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
elicited to disprove his testimony about the death of the deceased
Srinivasulu in the accident.
13. PW.4 who is said to be another injured and eyewitness to the incident deposed on the same lines as that of PWs.1 to 3. She also deposed that she received fracture injury to her right leg and others also received bleeding injuries. She also deposed that the deceased
Srinivasulu died on the spot. PWs.5 to 10 who are also said to be injured and eyewitnesses to the incident deposed on the same lines as that of
PWs.1 to 4. They also testifed about the death of the deceased
Srinivasulu in the said accident and receiving of injuries by them and other injured persons. Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of these witnesses to discredit their earlier testimonies.
14. PW11 who is said to be one of the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Srinivasulu deposed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in his presence. PW16 who is said to be the medical officer deposed that on 22.11.2019 he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and in his opinion the cause of death was due to “Antemortem multiple injuries”. In the cross-examination of PWs.11 and 16, nothing was elicited to discredit their previous testimonies about the death of the deceased Srinivasulu. Further, PW.17 is the investigating officer deposed about conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Srinivasulu and also about conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased boy/Novansh. He also deposed about receiving of simple injuries to PWs.4 to 9 and grievous injury to LW9/Narayana. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 along with PW.11 coupled with the evidence of PWs.16 and 17 clearly shows about the death of the deceased persons in the road traffic accident.
8 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
15. To establish the receiving of simple and grievous injuries to PWs.1, 3 to 10 and LW.9/Narayana the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 along with PW17. As discussed supra, PW1 deposed that he received bleeding injuries to his mouth and PW3 deposed that he received bleeding injuries to his chest but neither the medical officer who examined them nor any injury certifcates were fled to prove the same. PW4 who is said to be one of the injured witnesses in this case also deposed that she received fracture injury to her right leg in the accident. PW5 who is also said to be one of the injured persons testifed that he sufered fracture to the left side of his ribs and other persons also sustained bleeding injuries in the accident. Whereas, PW6 deposed that he received bleeding injuries to his head.
16. Coming to the evidence of PW.7, she deposed that she received bleeding injuries on the right side of her body. PW.8 deposed that he received bleeding injuries on his right shoulder and right side of his neck.
PW.9 also testifed that she received bleeding injuries on her head and other persons also received bleeding injuries. PW.10 who is said to be another injured person also deposed about sustaining of bleeding injuries to his right knee and head and his father received fracture injuries to his legs.
17. As discussed supra, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 shows that they received injuries but they failed to fle any injury certifcates to that efect. In the absence of injury certifcates of PWs.1 and 3 much credence need not be given to the evidence of PWs.1 and 3. Further, the evidence of PWs.4 to 10 shows that they received bleeding injuries and they were treated by the Medical officer. But it is to be noted that the prosecution failed to examine the medical officer who treated PWs.4 to 9 and
LW.9/Narayana for the reasons best known to them. But the investigating 9 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
officer, who examined as PW.17 clearly deposed that he collected injury certifcates of PWs.4 to 9 and LW.9/Narayana from LW2.4/Deekshita vide
Exs.P11 to P17. A perusal of the same discloses that PWs.4 to 9 received simple injuries and LW9/Narayana received grievous injuries. Though the oral evidence of PWs.4 to 9 shows that they received bleeding injuries, but as mentioned earlier, the medical officer who treated them was not examined by the prosecution and non-examination of the said medical officer fails to support the version of PWs.4 to 9 that they received simple injuries and LW9/Narayana received grievous injuries in the above said accident. Hence, much credence need not be given to the evidence of
PWs.1 to 10.
18. Thus, in view of above discussion, it can be said that the prosecution establish the death of the deceased persons in the road traffic accident occurred at Addakal village beyond all reasonable doubt, but failed to establish about receiving of simple injuries by PWs.1, 3 to 10 and grievous injuries by LW.9/Narayana in the above said accident beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in favour of the prosecution and partly against the prosecution.
19. Point No.2:
To establish that the accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident causing the accident, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 along with PW.14 coupled with the evidence of PW.17. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, he testifed that he came to know that one Pagalaxmi was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Even PW.2 deposed that he came to know that one Laxmi Devi was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident.
PW.3 initially deposed that he do not know who drove the above said car which caused accident, but later he stated that he came to know that one 10 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
woman was driving the car at the time of accident. Even PWs.4 and 5 deposed that they saw one woman was driving the car at the time of accident.
20. PWs.7 and 8 deposed that they came to know that one woman was driving the car at the time of accident which caused the accident.
Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, 7 and 8 only shows that they came to know that one woman was driving the crime vehicle at the time of accident.
21. PW.6 who is said to be one of the eyewitnesses and injured persons deposed that he saw one woman was driving the car at the time of accident and he can identify the said woman who drove the car at the time of accident. Accordingly, he identifed the accused who was present
in the court hall as the person who drove the said car i.e., crime vehicle
and caused the accident. In the cross-examination, except suggestions given to the witness nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony about the identifcation of the accused by him.
22. Coming to the evidence of PW.10 he testifed that on 22.11.2019 in between 8 AM and 10 AM he along with other injured persons went to
Kothakota village in a Toofan vehicle for a marriage alliance. When their vehicle crossed Addakal village one car came in opposite direction in another lane i.e, from Kurnool side and dashed to the divider, jumped and fell on their car, due to which, they all received bleeding injuries. He received bleeding injuries on his right knee and head and his father received fracture injuries to his legs. He further deposed that he can identify the driver of the car who drove the same on the date of incident.
Accordingly, he also identifed the accused as the person who drove the car which caused the accident on the date of accident. In the cross- examination, he admitted that he knows the number of the Toofan 11 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
vehicle. When the learned counsel for the accused gave suggestion that at the instance of police he identifed the accused and that he has not seen the accident, he denied the same. Thus, no useful material was elicited from the cross-examination of PW.10 to disprove about the identifcation of the accused person by him.
23. The evidence of PW.17 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 18.12.2019 deposed that the accused came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered before him and also admitted her guilt of ofence and later he issued notice under section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code.
In the cross-examination, he admitted that PWs.6 and 10 did not state
before him that they can identify the driver of the crime vehicle if they
see the said driver. But the identifcation of the accused by the witnesses
in the court hall is termed as substantiate piece of evidence and when
such identifcation failed to create any suspicion in the mind of the court, much importance need not be given to the above said admission.
24. Thus, after scanning the evidence of PWs.1 to 10, 14 and 17, it shows that the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 9 only discloses that they came to know that one woman was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and caused the accident. Whereas, PW.6 clearly deposed that accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and caused the accident. Even the evidence of PW.10 clearly shows that he identifed the accused as the person who drove the crime vehicle and caused the accident. PW.17 deposed that the accused herself came to the police station and surrendered before him and admitted her guilt and later he issued notice under section 41-A of Criminal Procedure Code to the accused with a direction to attend before the court as and when summons receives from this court.
12 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
25. In view of above discussion, it can be said that from the evidence of
PWs.6 and 10 coupled with the evidence of PWs.1, 4, 5, 7 to 9 the prosecution could able to establish that the accused was the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and caused the accident, resulting the death of the deceased persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
26. Point No.3:-
Now it has to be seen as to whether the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner at the time of accident and caused the accident, resulting the death of the deceased persons and sustaining of injuries by the injured persons. To establish the same, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 10 along with PW.15 coupled with the evidence of PW.17.
27. PW.1 in his evidence testifed that the crime vehicle came in high speed and due to the negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle the accident took place. Even PW.2 deposed that due to negligence of the driver of the car the accident took place. Since PW.2 is not an eyewitness much credence need not be given to this witness. Though
PW3 deposed that he do not know who drove the car, but clearly stated that due to negligent driving of driver of the car the accident occurred.
Further, the evidence of PWs.4 and 5 shows that due to negligent driving of car driver the accident occurred. PWs.7 and 8 testifed that due to negligent driving of car driver which came in opposite direction, the accident occurred. It is to be noted that nothing was elicited from the cross-examinations of these witnesses to discredit their testimonies about the negligent driving of the car driver at the time of accident and caused the accident.
13 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
28. Coming to the evidence of PW.9, he deposed that due to negligent driving of car driver which came in opposite direction the accident occurred. PW.10 in his evidence clearly deposed that due to negligent driving and high speed of car driver, which came in opposite direction the accident occurred. Even in the cross-examination of PWs.9 and 10 nothing was elicited to discredit their earlier testimonies about the negligent driving and driving of the car in a high speed by the car driver i.e., accused.
29. At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that mere driving of the vehicle at high speed cannot be said to be rash and negligent driving. He also contended that merely because the accused was the driver of lorry, it cannot be presumed that the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Learned counsel further argued that the statement of accused made before the police officer is not a substantive piece of evidence and he further vehemently stressed that non production of vehicles involved in the accident does not help prosecution to convict the accused. Lastly, he contended that merely because Toofan vehicle’s driver died in the accident it cannot be inferred that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. Hence, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased but not accused and as such, accused shall be given beneft of doubt leading to her acquittal. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the accused also relied upon the decisions by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh rendered in
B.Paramesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2009(2) ALD 108 (A.P),
Ii) K.Nageswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2003(2) ALD
(Crl.)256 (AP), iii) K.Dhananjaya Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
14 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
(2004(2) ALD (Crl.) 88 (AP) and iv) Suruvu Parshaiah Vs State of
Andhra Pradesh.
30. As discussed above, PWs.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 deposed that the driver of the car i.e, crime vehicle drove the same with high speed and negligent manner and caused the accident. From the available oral and documentary evidence, it is not clear at what speed the crime vehicle was proceeding at the time of accident. But, it is to be noted that whether driving the crime vehicle at high speed on a national highway amounts to rash or negligent act. No-doubt, it is true that the national Highways were laid to enable the vehicles to move faster to save time and money of the public. But, at the same time, it is to be kept in mind that whenever any village or inhabitants are approaching, there is every possibility of crossing the roads by the villagers and as such, the drivers of the vehicles is to be more vigilant while driving the vehicle at such places to avoid any untoward incident. As seen from the evidence of
PWs.1 to 5 and 7 to 10 it is clear that the accused drove the crime vehicle with high speed and negligent manner and caused accident. Further, it is to be noted that when the crime vehicle hit the divider and jumped in the air and fallen on the other vehicle coming in opposite direction in another lane, shows the high speed and negligent driving of the said vehicle by the accused.
31. It is also to be noted that PWs.1 to 10 clearly deposed that the crime vehicle came in high speed and in negligent manner in opposite direction from another lane, dashed to the divider, jumped and fell on their vehicle which was proceeding in another lane, which clearly shows that the accused drove the crime vehicle with high speed and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting the death of deceased persons and sustaining of injuries to the injured persons. As rightly 15 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
contended by the learned counsel for the accused the statement made by the accused before the investigating officer has no evidentiary value and as such the same cannot be taken into consideration. But, it is pertinent to mention here that when the accused was asked whether she wanted to say anything about the case during her examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code she simply gave her reply as ‘No’.
When the accused failed to state anything about the incriminating material available against her, an adverse inference can be drawn under section 106 of Indian Evidence Act that the accused drove the said crime vehicle on the said date and caused the accident.
32. The learned counsel for the accused further contended that the prosecution failed to produce the vehicles involved in this case before this court and non-production of same does not help the prosecution case and the beneft of doubt shall be given to the accused. In support of the same, he relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh rendered in K.Dhananajaya Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2004(2) ALD (Crl.) 88 (AP). In the said case, it is held that the since the prosecution has miserably failed to show that the accused was riding the motorcycle and caused the accident by giving a dash to the cycle.
But, in the instant case, PWs.1, 3 to 10 clearly testifed that the accused drove the crime vehicle with high speed and in negligent manner, hit the divider, due to which, the crime vehicle jumped and fell on the car which was coming in opposite direction in another lane and caused the accident, resulting the death of the deceased persons and sustaining of injuries by the injured persons i.e., PWs.1, 3 to 10.
33. Further, it is to be noted that there is no dispute with regard to above said fact that the crime vehicle gave a dash to the divider, due to which, it jumped and fallen on the vehicle coming in opposite direction in 16 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
another lane causing the accident. Nothing was elicited from the cross- examination of the witnesses to disprove the above fact. Hence, with due respect to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, it can be said that the facts and circumstances of said case are not applicable to this case and as such, the same is not much helpful to the case of the accused.
Further, the other case laws relied upon by the learned defence counsel are also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
34. PW.14 who is said to be one of the panch witnesses for scene of ofence panchanama deposed that on 22.11.2019 at about 12.15 PM police conducted scene of ofence panchanama on National High way
No.44 at Kilometer stone No.119/4 in his presence with regard to an accident and later obtained his signature on the said panchanama. Ex.P5 is the said Crime Details Form which contains his signature. In the cross- examination, he admitted that there are two vehicles in Ex.P5 and he denied the suggestion that after seeing Crime Details Form before giving evidence he deposed about the kilometer stone. Thus, the evidence of
PW.14 shows that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident at the scene of ofence. Further, the evidence of PW.14 discloses the scene of ofence which also supported by the evidence of
PWs.1 to 10.
35.PW.15 who is Motor Vehicle Inspector and who deposed that on 28.11.2019 at 4.00 PM, he inspected the crime vehicle at the premises of
Addakal Police station and found damages on the vehicle and he also gave his opinion by stating that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle and accordingly he issued Ex.P6 report.
Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW.15 to discredit his earlier testimony.
17 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
36.PW.17 who is the investigating officer, deposed about lodging of
Ex.P1 by PW.1, registering of crime and issuance of FIR, examination of the witnesses and also conducting of Crime Detail Form, inquest over the dead body of the deceased persons in the presence of the mediators and also taking of photographs of the scene and also dead bodies of the deceased persons and subjected them for postmortem examination. He also deposed that accused surrendered before him and voluntarily confessed to have committed the ofence and after collecting all relevant documents, he fled charge sheet against the accused. Though PW.17 was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel no useful material was elicited to discredit his testimony.
37.Thus, from the evidence available on record, it shows that though there are some minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. When the witnesses are examined after a long time from the date of accident, minor discrepancies are bound to occur and the court can ignore those discrepancies. Hence, this court has no hesitation in holding that the evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 10 along with PW.14 coupled with the evidence of
PWs.15 and 17 have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence is trustworthy and there is no iota of doubt to disbelieve their versions.
38.In view of foregoing discussion, it can be held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the accused who drove the crime vehicle on the date of the accident and caused the accident by driving the same with high speed and negligent manner. Moreover, PW.15 who inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.MH03CM1678 also opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle under Ex.P6.
18 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
39.In view of aforesaid discussion and on careful scrutiny of evidence of
PWs.1 to 17 and in the light of recitals of Exs.P1 to P17, this court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the ofence punishable under section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt but the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the ofence punishable under section 338 and 337 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.
40.In the result, accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and she is accordingly, convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.
Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 07th day of April, 2022.
SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR.
41.When the accused questioned about the quantum of sentence to be imposed explaining the fnding arrived at by the court, the accused pleaded not guilty and further submitted that she is having one month old baby boy who was sufering from heart problem and having a hole in his heart and recently she also undergone surgery. Accused also submitted that she has been sufering from diferent health issues and also went into depression and hence, she prayed this court to show mercy by taking a lenient view in imposing the sentence. After hearing the accused who is a woman and who has been sufering from diferent health issues and considering the fact that the accused lost her child in the said accident, this court is of the considered view that imposing of sentence of simple imprisonment for six months would meet the ends of
Justice. Further, the provisions of Probation Ofenders Act are not applicable to the accident cases.
19 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
42.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the ofence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly she is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the ofence under section 304-A IPC and she also sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only), in default in payment of fne to sufer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Accused is found not guilty for the ofence under sections 338 and 337 of IPC and accordingly she is acquitted under section 255(1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The remand period, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given set of under section 428 of Criminal Procedure
Code. A free copy of the judgment shall be furnished to the accused
U/Sec.363 Cr.P.C. Since no property is deposited there is no order with regard to property.
Typed on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 07th day of April, 2022.
SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
PW1 K.Venkataiah, - None - PW2 K.Thirupathaiah, PW3 Narsimhulu, PW4 K.Jyothi, PW5 K.Shankaraiah, PW6 K.Ugender, PW7 K.Lalitha, PW8 K.Nagappa, PW9 Saroja @ Sridevi, PW10 K.Jagadeesh, PW11 V.Vijay Kumar, PW12 Raghu Prasad, PW13 Shanthappa, PW14 G.Bheemudu, PW15 S.Naresh, MVI, PW16 Dr.Lokesh, PW17 B.Naresh, SI of police.
20 of 20 CC.No.800 of 2019
Dt:07-04-2022
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P1 is the Report, - NIL - Ex.P2 is the Inquest panchanama of D1, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW.12 on Inquest panchanama, Ex.P4 is the signature of PW.13 on Inquest panchanama, Ex.P5 is the Crime Details Form, Ex.P6 is the MVI report, Ex.P7 is the Post Mortem Examination report of D1, Ex.P8 is the First Information Report, Ex.P9 is the Inquest Report of D2, Ex.P10 is the Post Mortem Examination report of D2, Ex.P11 is the Medical certifcate of PW4, Ex.P12 is the Medical certifcate of PW5, Ex.P13 is the Medical certifcate of PW6, Ex.P14 is the Medical certifcate of PW7, Ex.P15 is the Medical certifcate of LW9 Narayana, Ex.P16 is the Medical certifcate of PW8, Ex.P17 is the Medical certifcate of PW.9.
Material Objects Marked
-Nil-
SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
MOBILE COURT, MAHABOOBNAGAR.