Smt. P.lakshmi Kumari

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE : AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI, IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

C.C.No. 1002 of 2015

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Narayanaguda,

Hyderabad. ... Complainant

A N D

A1. T.Harish Gowtham S/o. Venugopal, Aged about 24 years, R/o. Flat No.301, Ganapathi Complex, Sri Nagar Colony, Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad.

*A2.Hari Krishna S/o. Venkata Ramana, Aged about 23 years, R/o. H.No.2­780, Rajampet, Aakula Street, Kadapa District.

*A3.D.Sai Ram Reddy S/o. Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 20 years, R/o. Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.s *A4.Shaik Azaharuddin S/o. Sk.Muneeruddin, Aged about 20 years, R/o. H.No.8­3­22/1­71, Ramanthapura, Hyderabad.

*A5.K.Prashanth Kumar, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged about 23 years, R/o. H.No.14­20­677/391, Vivekananda Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

(This case is against A1 only. A2 to A5 are absconding from the inception and yet to be arrested) … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 22.02.2021 in the presence of learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 1 of 21 and of Sri Ajay Kumar, counsel for the accused No.1 and after hearing and after 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, Police Station Narayanaguda has filed charge sheet against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under sections 363, 342 and 323 of Indian Penal Code in

Crime No.127/2015.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that PW1 had lodged a report before the police on 26­03­2015 stating that he was abducted by the accused No.1 along with other accused namely Hari

Krishna, Sai Ram Reddy, Shaik Azaharuddin and K.Prashanth Kumar while PW1 along with Pw2 had went to Vikramnagar park,

Narayanaguda for collecting hand loan amount from PW6 at that time accused along with other accused persons namely Hari Krishna, Sai

Ram Reddy, Shaik Azaharuddin and K.Prashanth Kumar came in a car bearing no. AP­09CF­9856/MO1 and had dragged PW1 in to the car, restrained him and took PW1 in the car up to Raj Bhavan Road by beating him with their hands and after realizing that the police has learnt about the abduction of PW1, the accused No.1 and his above associates had left PW1 near the police station, Narayanaguda and fled away. Thereafter accused No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offences under sections 363, 342 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 2 of 21

3.This court took cognizance against the accused No.1 for the offences under sections 363, 342 and 323 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of accused No.1, copies of charge sheet and other documents furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No.1 examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation and the particulars of the offences u/Sec. 363, 342 and 323 of Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution

P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents were marked and MO1 is also marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused

No.1 was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in prosecution witnesses and he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused no.1 for the offences punishable under section 363, 342 and 323 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts ?

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 3 of 21

POINT:

9. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined total 8 witnesses. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26­03­2015 at about 19:00 hours near Vikram Nagar park

Narayanguda, Hyderabad PW1 was abducted into Vento car bearing registration number AP 09 9856 (M.O.1) by the accused no.1 along with his associates by name Hari Krishna, Sai Ram Reddy, Shaik

Azaharuddin and K.Prashanth Kumar by wrongfully restraining him and started beating him with their hands till Raj Bhavan road and after realizing that the police has learnt about the abduction of PW.1 , the accused no.1 and his above named asssociates had left PW1 near the Narayanaguda police station and fled away.

10.The defence of the accused no.1 that the accused no.1 had been falsely implicated by the PW1 due to the grudge and that accused no.1 never abducted PW1 or wrongfully restrained nor beat

PW1.

11.PW1 is the victim/ defacto complainant. He has deposed

before this court that he is resident of Borabanda, Hyderabad and

doing private job and fell into love with PW2 about 2 ½ years ago and got married in Arya Samaj situated at Seethapalmandi and residing at

Viveknagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad along with PW2; that on 26­03­ 2015 the friend of PW2 i.e. PW6 had called PW1 and PW2 to collect

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 4 of 21 hand loan from PW.6 as such PW1 and PW2 together went to Vikram nagar Park locality and while they were waiting there at that time mother and brother of PW2 along with some other persons came there and in the mean time PW6 also came there and while they were talking with each other the family members of PW2 came there and accused no.1 caught hold PW1 with his hands and the mother of the accused no.1 namely Jamuna and his sisters and some others namely Prashanth Kumar, Azaruddin, Sairam Reddy, the friends of the accused no.1 had suddenly took PW1 forcibly into MO1 and from there took him to Raj Bhavan road by beating him with their hands and in the meantime PW8 had asked P.W.1 about his whereabouts and PW1 replied that he was being taken by the accused no.1 and others and they are beating him ; that thereafter the accusedno.1 turned MO.1 towards Narayanaguda police station and dropped PW1; and that PW1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. Pw1 has also deposed that he was abducted for the reason by the accused no.1 and others as he married PW2 in Arya Samaj without the consent of her parents and brothers .

12.PW2 deposed that Pw1 is her husband and PW3 is her friend and she has no knowledge about the facts of the case.

13.PW3 is the one panch witness for recording confession cum seizure panchanama and his testimony is that on 25­08­2015 he

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 5 of 21 was summoned by the police to come to the police station and accordingly he attended the police station where he saw PW1, accused no.1 , the Sub­Inspector of police, that the police appraised him about the facts of the case. Except deposing about inadmissible evidence regarding making of alleged confession by the accused no.1 in his presence in the police station PW.3 did not speak about relevant portion of the contents of confession cum seizure panchnama under

EXP.3 hence he was examined by learned Asst. Public Prosecutor under section 154 of the indian evidence Act wherein he admitted that

MO.1 was seized by the police in his presence.

14.PW4 is the doctor and he has deposed that PW1 came to the hospital on 26­03­2015 at about 10:35 PM and complained that he was beaten by known persons at about 7 PM on 26­03­2015 at

Vikramnagar Park, Narayanaguda and PW4 had examined PW1 and did not find visible and external injuries on the person of PW1 but he found mild tenderness over back and both legs of PW1, and accordingly issued Ex.P4 injury certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature.

15.PW5 is the panch witness for scene observation panchanama deposed that on 26­03­2015 police summoned him near to Vikram nagar park,Saibaba temple, Narayanaguda and accordingly

Pw5 attended and had observed the scene of offence and in his

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 6 of 21 presence police had drafted scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch under Ex.P5.

16.PW6 is the friend of PW2 deposed that PW1 is the husband of PW2 and she has no knowledge about the facts of the case and was declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor.

17.PW7 is the panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama deposed that on 26­03­2015 police i.e. PW8 had summoned him to the police station and accordingly he attended police station and police appraised him about the facts of the case and in his presence the accused confessed that his sister got love marriage with PW1 and for the said reason he abducted PW1 as PW2 got married without the consent of her parents and thereafter the parents of PW2 had felt humiliated and mentally disturbed and therefore PW1 was abducted. PW7 has deposed that the accused led them near the police station and showed MO1 that was parked infront of the police station and told that in the said car/MO1 he abducted PW1 and thereafter police seized MO1 in his presence and in the presence of other panch witness.

18.PW8 is the investigating officer deposed that on 26­03­2015 at about 21:30 hours LW9/ T.Venkateshwarlu received report from

PW1 and basing on the said report under Ex.P1

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 7 of 21

LW9/T.Venkateshwarlu had registered the FIR under Ex.P7 and thereafter LW9/T.Venkateshwarlu handed over the case diary file to

PW8. PW8 after receipt of case diary file immediately sent PW1 to

District Hospital, King Koti for medical treatment and thereafter had examined PW1 and recorded his statement in the police station and visited the scene of offence i.e. Vikramnagar Park and secured the presence of PW3 and PW5 and prepared scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch in their presence and recorded the statement of PW2 and PW6 and LW4/ N.Kiran and that on 18­08­ 2015 A1 surrendered before the police and he has been served 41(A)

Cr.P.C. notice and thereafter on interrogation A1 has confessed his guilt in the presence of PW3 and Pw7 and MO1 was seized from the possession of A1 under the cover of Ex.P3 and thereafter receipt of medical certificate of PW1 and after deposit of case property he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 363, 342, 323 of Indian Penal Code.

19.The statement on oath of PW1 before this Court is that on 26/03/2015 when he came to Vikramnagar park locality,

Narayanguda along with PW2 for the purpose of collecting money from

PW6, the accused no.1, the mother of the accused no.1, the sister of the accused no.1, Prsanth Kumar, Azaruddin, Sriram Reddy and the friends of the accused no.1 came there, the accused no.1 tightly held him with his hands and they forcibly took him from there towards Raj

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 8 of 21

Bhavan road in MO.1 and they were indiscriminately beating him with their hands. Thus the evidence of PW1 that he was actually physically obstructed by the accused no.1 who held him tightly with his hands, and thereafter PW1 was forcibly compelled to go along with the accused no.1 and his associates from Narayanguda locality towards

Raj Bhavan road in MO1. Except giving suggestions to PW1 that he is deposing false that no one has kidnapped him by taking him into a car, that nobody has beaten him, that no incident has occurred, that due to grudge upon the accused the present case is lodged against the accused and that the accused did not commit any offence on 26/03/2015, the accused no.1 has failed to destroy the creditworthiness of the testimony of PW1 about the liability of the accused no.1 and the associates for wrongfully confining him at

Vikramnagar park locality, Narayanguda and abducting him from

Vikramnagar park locality, Narayanguda in MO.1 on 26/05/2015. The accused can destroy the case of the prosecution by way of cross­ examining the prosecution witnesses even without adducing rebuttal evidence. However mere giving of suggestions to the prosecution witness on behalf of the accused during the course of cross­ examination does not tantamount discrediting the testimony of the said witness sans any elicitation of fact thereby rendering the testimony of the said witness unreliable. PW1 has also testified before this Court about the motive on the part of the accused no.1 for wrongfully confining him and abducting him by stating that the

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 9 of 21 accused no.1 and his associates and the other members of the family of PW2 developed grudge against him as he married PW2 as per Arya

Samaj rituals, without the consent and that their marriage is a love marriage.

20.Interestingly the accused no.1 did not question PW1 regarding his testimony about the motive on the part of the accused no.1 for wrongfully confining him and abducting him in order to raise any doubt about the veracity of said evidence of PW1. In the authority reported in 2013 (4) SCC 97 between Laxmibai vs. Bhagwantbuva the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Held at para 40 as Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in

Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross­examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination­in­chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 10 of 21 veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses.

21. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 has argued that

PW1 has materially improved his testimony before this court from his previous statement under ExP1 by deposing for the 1st time before this court that one Nagarjun Reddy/Sub Inspector of Police call him over his cell phone and asked about his whereabouts and he replied that he was being taken to Raj Bhavan road by the accused no.1 and his associates in MO.1 and they are beating him and realising that the police has came to know about the incident they turned MO.1 towards

Narayanguda police station and dropped him, thereby rendering the testimony of PW1 before this Court wholly unreliable. PW1 has averred in ExP1 that the accused no.1 and his associates after realising that the police came to know about the incident of abducting him, they

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 11 of 21 immediately brought him to the police station concerned. Thus the evidence of PW1 before this court about one Nagarjun Reddy/Sub

Inspector of Police calling him over his cell phone and asking him about his whereabouts and PW1 replying that he was being taken to

Raj Bhavan road by the accused no.1 and his associates in MO.1 and they are beating him is merely an omission, and not contradiction and on that count the entire testimony of PW1 cannot be disbelieved.

22.It is also argued on behalf of the accused no.1 that the testimony of PW1 discloses that PW2 and PW6 are eyewitnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution in general and the evidence of PW1 in particular as such the testimony of PW1 is not corroborated with the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, and cannot be acted upon. This court in foregoing paragraph found that the accused no.1 has failed to make out strong grounds for rejection of evidence of

PW1 on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.

Even the prosecution is found to have established motive on the part of the accused no.1 and his associates for wrongfully confining and abducting PW1. Though the accused no.1 has suggested to PW1 that due to grudge he lodged false complaint under ExP1 but the accused no.1 has failed to bring on record the reason for the alleged grudge on the part of PW1 for filing ExP1 during the course of cross­examination of PW1. PW1 is the victim at the hands of the accused no.1 and his associates and will not want to let the culprits go unpunished merely

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 12 of 21 to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence.

Thus, the deposition of PW1 should be relied upon in view of the time­ tested principle incorporated in section 134 of the Indian Evidence

Act that evidence need not be counted, but weighed. Accordingly this court do not find any force in the argument put forth on behalf of the accused no.1 that sans corroboration of testimony of PW1 with the testimonies of PW2 and PW6, the testimony of PW1 has to be discarded.

23.According to the prosecution pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the accused no.1 under ExP3 MO.1 was seized by

PW8 in the presence of PW3 and PW7 on 18/08/2015 at Narayanguda police station. PW3 in his examination in chief did not support the case of the prosecution about seizure of MO1 at the instance of the accused no.1 but the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has elicited during the course of examination of PW3 under section 154 of the

Indian Evidence Act that in his presence the police seized MO1. It is significant to note that the accused no.1 did not choose to cross­ examine PW3. The evidence of PW7 before this court proves that the accused no.1 led them near the police station and at his instance MO1 was seized by the police. The Investigating Officer(PW8) has also deposed about the seizure of MO1 under ExP3 by him in the presence of PW3 and PW7. The contents of ExP3 corroborates the evidence of

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 13 of 21

PW7 about discovery of MO1 by PW8 as a result of the disclosure statement made by the accused no.1. The learned counsel for the accused no.1 has argued that PW7 has stated during the course of his cross examination that the police drafted confession­cum­seizure panchnama with handwritten document whereas ExP3 is a computer printout as such it can be concluded that the police has suppressed the handwritten document and ExP3 is not the same panchnama that was typed in the presence of PW7, and it lends credence to the defence of the accused no.1 that PW7 is not the witness to the preparation of

ExP3 and his signature has been subsequently obtained on ExP3 by the police. The accused no.1 did not question PW8 at all about recording of confession­cum­seizure panchnama in handwritten form , and not in in the form of computer print out simultaneous to the recording of the disclosure statement of the accused no.1 in the presence of PW7. The accused no.1 has cross­examined PW7 only about drafting of confession­cum­seizure panchnama in handwritten form, and there is no cross­examination of PW7 about subscribing his signature on the said handwritten panchnama alone at the

Narayanguda police station and on no other computer generated panchnanama, and also about the typing of the contents of ExP3 in his presence at the Narayanguda police station subsequent to the making of confession statement by the accused no.1. It is likely that initially the making of the confessional statement of the accused no.1 was recorded in the handwritten form in the presence of PW3 and PW7 and

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 14 of 21 later for the purpose of clarity and legibility the same was typed on computer simultaneous to the making of the confessional statement by the accused no.1.

24.The learned counsel for the accused no.1 has finally argued that according to the contents of ExP3 the same was prepared on 18/08/2015 whereas the evidence of PW7 is that MO.1 was seized under ExP3 on 26/03/2015 as such no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW7 to believe the case of the prosecution that MO1 was seized by PW8 on 18/08/2015. In other words the well­known maxim falsus in une falsus in omnibus is relied upon by the accused no.1. Mere deposing incorrect date of observing the proceedings under

ExP3 by PW3 will not render his entire testimony unbelievable for the reason that maxim has not received general acceptance in different jurisdictions in India nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of a rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is that in such cases the testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

judgement reported in AIR 1965 SC 277 between Ugar Ahir vs. State

of Bihar at para 7 held as The maxim falsus in uno, falsu in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 15 of 21 exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. The said inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused no.1 is a minor discrepancy. The accused no.1 has not disturbed the testimony of PW8 that the accused no.1 voluntarily surrendered at the

Narayanguda police station on 18/08/2015 and on the same day section 41­A of the Code of Criminal Procedure notice dispensing the arrest of the accused no.1 was served on the accused no.1. It is not the case of the accused no.1 that he surrendered before the

Narayanguda police prior to 18/08/2015. Thus the occasion of making of any confessional statement by the accused no.1 before the said date much less on 26/3/2015 does not arise as the accused no.1 was absconding at that time. PW7 witness the proceedings under ExP3 in the month of August, 2015 and he has entered into witness box in this case to give his evidence on 13/12/2019 i.e., after lapse of almost four and half years. Therefore, in the circumstance of this case it can be said that PW7 has deposed incorrect date of witnessing the proceedings under ExP3 only due to normal error of memory due to lapse of considerable time.

25. The discovery evidence relevant under section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act is considered as evidence of third degree. Even the argument advanced on behalf of the accused no.1 to disbelieve that

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 16 of 21 seizure of MO1 is not relevant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act on the twin grounds raised by him is believed for a moment, the same not belie the strerling quality of evidence of PW1 against the accused no.1 for wrongfully confining and abducting him. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in the authority reported in (2002) 6 SCC 81 between Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar at para 37 held as In my view, recovery of no incriminating material from the accused cannot alone be taken as a ground to exonerate them from the charges, more so when their participation in the crime is unfolded in ocular account of the occurrence given by the witnesses, whose evidence has been found by me to be unimpeachable.

26.Accordingly ,this Court in view of foregoing discussion find that there is a ring of truth in the testimony of PW1 that the accused no.1 has wrongly restrained him and abducted him on 26/03/2015 at

Vikramnagar Park locality, Narayanguda in MO.1. This Court also find a color of consistency in the evidence of PW7 about discovery of MO.1 by PW8 at the instance of the accused no.1. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt about the liability of the accused no.1 for commission of the offences punishable under section 342 and 363 of the Indian Penal Code.

27.PW1 did not specifically depose before this Court that the accused no.1 and his associates have beaten him with their hands on

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 17 of 21 his back and both the legs while taking him in MO.1 towards Raj

Bhavan road. Thus the testimony of the medical witness (PW4) about presence of simple injuries on the back and both the legs of PW1 is not corroborated with the evidence of PW1. PW1 has made omnibus statement on oath before this Court about the liability of the accused no1 and his associates for indiscriminately beating him with their hands without attributing any specific overt act to the accused no.1 and also without specifying the part of his body where he sustained simple injuries as a result of alleged beating. Therefore, under such circumstance on the basis of vague evidence of PW1 about the liability of the accused no.1 along with his associates for beating him with their hands cannot be safely relied upon. Hence it is held that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 for commission of the offence under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against PW1. 

POINT NO. 2:

28. In view of my finding given in point no.1, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 323 of Indian Penal

Code and he is acquitted for the said offence under section 248 (1) of

Code of Criminal Procedure and accused No.1 is found guilty for the offence under sections 363, 342 of Indian Penal Code.

29. In the result, accused No.1 is found guilty of the offences

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 18 of 21 under section 363, 342 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused

No.1 is convicted under section 248(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure . 

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

30. Heard the accused No.1 on the quantum of sentence by explaining the punishment prescribed for the offences proved u/Secs.363, 342 of Indian Penal Code. The accused no.1 has submitted that he is having his age old parents and pregnant wife.

Hence, lenient view may be taken in. The accused no.1 has prayed this

Court to take lenient view in imposing sentence on him, and he reported that he has no evidence to adduce on the question of sentence to be imposed on him.

31.In view of the circumstance of this case and in the light of the submissions made by the accused no.1 this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders

Act, 1958, or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused No.1. This Court deem it proper that the ends of justice would meet on imposition of sentence on the accused No.1 to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and also to pay fine of

Rs.1000/­ and in default in payment of said fine to undergo Simple

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 19 of 21

Imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, and also to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four months for the offence under section 342 of the

Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs.200/­ and in default in payment of said fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of seven days for the offence under section 342 of the Indian Penal Code.

The remand period nil to be set off as per section 428 of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The interim custody MO1 which was already given to

PW1 by virtue of orders in Crl.M.P. No. 127 of 2015, dt. 26­08­2015 shall hold good after the expiry of appeal time. 

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD. 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED 

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1Kola Rupesh P.W.2Rajeshwari P.W.3G.Ganesh P.W.4Dr.M.Vani Padmasri P.W.5Vinay Reddy P.W.6Prashanthi P.W.7J.R.Vamshideep P.W.8B.Nagarjuna Reddy

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 20 of 21

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P­1Report Ex.P­2scene observation panchanama. Ex.P­3Confession panchanama Ex.P­4Injury certificate. Ex.P­5Scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P­6161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P­7first information report. 

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1:One Vento Car bearing No. AP­09CF­9856.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

C.C. 1002 of 2015 Page 21 of 21

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI, IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C.No. 743 of 2017

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Narayanaguda,

Hyderabad. ... Complainant

A N D

R.Shanthi Reddy S/o. Krishna Reddy, Aged about 48 years, R/o. Auto Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 27.01.2021 in the presence of learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Kumareshan, counsel for the accused and after hearing and after 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, Police Station Narayanaguda has filed charge sheet against accused herein for the offence punishable under section 279 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.264/2017.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 21-7-2017 at about 20:00 hours PW1 had lodged report under Ex.P1 stating that the crime vehicle i.e. DCM bearing No. AP-05TT-5272 was driven in rash and negligent manner while the volvo bus of PW1 was stationed near the traffic signal at Narayanaguda fly over and had dashed the volvo bus of PW1 bearing No. TS-9Z-7672 from back side due to

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 1 of 17 which the said bus of the PW1 got damaged and immediately after the accident PW1 had got down from the bus and had enquired with the driver of the offending vehicle who revealed his name as Shanthi

Reddy and immediately after the accident the bus of the complainant was parked aside of the rod. Basing on the report lodged by PW1, a case was registered against the accused.

Thereafter accused has been charge sheeted for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code.

3.This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of charge sheet and other documents furnished to him under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation and the particulars of the offence u/Sec.279 of Indian

Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to

P.W.5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 documents were marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in prosecution witnesses and he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Heard the arguments of both sides.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 2 of 17 8..Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of accused herein for the offence alleged u/Sec.279 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 20-7-2017 the accused drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner near the Narayanaguda fly over traffic signal when the signal turned red and had hit the stationed RTC bus of PW1 from behind due t which the bus of PW1 was got damaged on its rear portion and thereafter PW1 had lodged Ex.P1 report.

10.The defence of the accused is that he has not committed any offence and he never drove the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and never dashed the bus of PW1 and that there is no evidentiary proof of alleged damage caused to the bus of PW1 and that a false case is lodged against him by PW1 and that there is a delay in lodging report under Ex.P1 from the date of occurrence of offence till date of lodging report.

11.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined total 5 witnesses. The brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:

12.PW1 is the driver of the Volvo RTC bus bearing No. TS-9Z-7672

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 3 of 17 deposed before this court that on 20-07-2017 at about 21:45 hours while he was driving the bus in route no. 113 M/W and was proceeding from Narayanaguda fly over and when he reached near the Barkatpura traffic signal, the traffic signal was turned red and therefore, PW1 had stopped his bus, at that time the offending vehicle i.e. DCM bearing No.AP-05TT-5272 came from the behind and had hit his bus due to which the back engine of the bus was got damaged. PW1 deposed that he can identify the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly he had identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. PW1 further deposed that immediately after the accident, he got down from the bus and had seen the back portion of the bus was got damaged and he questioned the driver of the offending vehicle about the reason for hitting his bus and then the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle had replied to PW1 that his break did not work.

13.There is no suggestion given to PW1 that the accused is not the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and had not driven the offending vehicle in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life of PW1 and PW2 or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person and that the accused had never hit the bus of PW1 from the behind while the bus of PW1 was stationed while traffic signal turned red and has not caused any damaged to the rear portion of the bus of PW.1

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 4 of 17

14.PW2 is the eye witness and conductor of bus of PW.1 has deposed before this court that on 20-07-2017 at about 09:30 PM

PW1 was proceeding as the driver of the RTC bus and PW2 was the conductor of the same bus and the bus was stopped at

Narayanaguda fly over traffic signal, at that time the offending vehicle i.e. DCM bearing No. AP-05TT-5272 came from behind and had dashed the bus of PW.1 on the rear side which was stationed at

Narayanaguda fly over signal when the traffic signal turned red and said bus was damaged and that immediately after the accident PW2 had got down from the bus and had seen the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. PW2 deposed that he can identify the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly PW2 had identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle.

15.There is no suggestion given to PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused is not the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and had not driven in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger the human life of PW1 and PW2 or to be likely to cause hurt on injury to any other person and has not hit the bus of PW.1 and no damaged was caused to the rear portion of the bus of PW1 due to the hit given by the offending vehicle when the bus of PW1 was stationed at Narayanaguda fly over signal when the traffic signal turned red.

16.PW3 is the circumstantial witness had deposed before this

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 5 of 17 court that in the year 2017 Chief Inspector of the RTC had rang to him and informed him to attend Narayanaguda police station to know about the condition of the RTC bus and then PW3 went to

Narayanaguda police station and had observed that the back side of

RTC bus was got damaged. No suggestion was given to PW3 by the learned counsel for the accused that the RTC bus is not having any kind of damage caused at the rear portion of the said bus.

17.PW4 is the panch witness for scene observation panchanama and rough sketch deposed that on 22-7-2017 police had prepared rough sketch of scene of offence and had conducted scene observation panchanama in his presence and in the presence of another panch witness by name T.Srinivas/LW.5 under Ex.P2.

18.PW5 is the investigating officer deposed about the chronology of investigation done by him. PW5 had deposed that on 21-7-2017 he received report under Ex.P1 at 8:00 PM from PW1 and had registered first information report in crime no. 264/2017 under

Ex.P3 and thereafter examined PW1 to PW3 and recorded their statements in police station and on the next day he visited the scene of offence and prepared scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch under Ex.P2 in the presence of PW4 and LW5/ T.Srinivas and on the same day the accused voluntarily appeared before PW5 and PW5 had served section 41(A) Cr.P.C. notice upon the accused dispensing his arrest.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 6 of 17

19.The learned counsel for the accused argued that there is no evidentiary proof with regard to the cost of damage occurred to the RTC volvo bus driven by PW1 and the evidence of prosecution witnesses PW1 to PW3 no where proves the actual cost of damage occurred to the vehicle of PW1.

20.The learned APP per contra argued that the said damage of RTC bus of PW1 is clearly and categorically proved with the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and it is further proved that the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle had driven in manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life of PW1 and PW2 or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person and had dashed the bus of PW1 from behind on its rear portion due to which the bus of PW1 got damaged by the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

21.Section 279 of Indian Penal Code no where stated in the ingredients about the mischief occurred to the vehicle and only states the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident endangering life of human being. The bear reading of the section 279 of Indian Penal Code discloses that “whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 7 of 17

22.This court relied upon a authority reported in Mohan

Singh Vs. Prem Singh in 2003 (Crl.L.J) 11 (SC) wherein it was held that in order to prove the damage the charge under section 279 of Indian Penal Code what is expected all the prosecution witnesses is to furnish the description or manner in which the offending vehicle is being driven and it is sufficient to prove that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code in a public way and the act must be was to endangering human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.

23.The only suggestion that was given to PW1 to PW3 and

PW5 by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no documentary proof regarding the damage caused to the bus of PW1.

The above said suggestion given to PW1 to PW3 and PW5 by the learned counsel for the accused has no relevancy for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code, when the ingredients of the

Act and the manner of rash and negligent driving of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle while driving on public way near the scene of offence as to endangering the human life or personal safety likely to cause hurt or injury to any person and more particularly to PW1 and PW2 is clearly proved with the evidence of

PW1 and PW2.

24.However the above said suggestion given to PW1 to PW3

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 8 of 17 and PW5 by the learned counsel for the accused also impliedly suggest that there was a damage caused to the vehicle of the PW1 by the accused and there is no specific denial on the part of the accused that there is no such damage at all caused to the vehicle of the PW1 on 20-7-2017 by the accused. The evidence of PW3 who is the circumstantial witness categorically proves that there was damage occurred to the rear portion of the RTC volvo bus bearing

No. TS-9Z-7672.

25.It is pertinent to note that a suggestion which was given to

PW1 to PW3 and PW5 by the learned counsel for the accused about the cost of damage occurred to the vehicle of PW1 is clearly probablising and also proving that there is a damage caused to the vehicle of PW1 on the rear side near the scene of accident on 20-7- 2017 at about 21:45 hours and hence the said suggestion given to

PW1 to PW3 itself destroys the defence of the accused that there is no proof of damage caused to the vehicle of PW1 and that the accused did not caused any damage to the vehicle of PW1 as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, the question of documentary evidence i.e. CCTV footage of scene of offence or any photographs of damaged vehicle does not arise and has no relevancy in such circumstances and does not effect the case of prosecution of act of rash and negligent act of driving in public place and therefore this court do not force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that in absence of any

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 9 of 17 documentary evidence more particularly CCTV footage at the scene of accident and the photographs of damaged vehicle of PW1 effects the case of the prosecution and does not prove the guilt of the accused.

Section 279 of Indian Penal Code states that:

“whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

26.The evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly proved the manner of driving of accused as the driver of the offending vehicle that the accused on 20-7-2017 at about 9:30 PM being the driver of the offending vehicle had driven in manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life of PW1 and PW2 or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person and had dashed the bus of PW1 from behind on its rear portion due to which the bus of PW1 got damaged by the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and the bus of PW1 had shaken and immediately after the said accident PW1 and PW2 got down from the bus and had seen that the rear portion of the said bus of PW1 got damaged and had questioned the accused about his identity and then the accused revealed his identity and told that his brake did not work near the

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 10 of 17 scene of offence.

27.Therefore, with regard to the question of identity of accused as the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident is also prove before this court by the evidence of PW1 and PW2

before this court that they have got down from the bus immediately

after the accident and had questioned the accused about his identity and about the reason for dash given to the RTC bus of PW1 clearly proved that PW1 and PW2 have got sufficient opportunity to interact with the accused at considerable amount of time. It is not the case of the defence that the conductor/ PW2 who being conductor had no opportunity to see the rash and negligent act of driving of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.The act of the accused while hitting the bus of PW1 while the said bus of PW1 was stationed near the Narayanaguda fly over signal when the traffic signal turned red amounts to rash and negligent act of the accused as the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident which makes the accused liable for rash and negligent driving.

28.Learned counsel for the had argued that there is a delay in lodging report under EXP.1 from the date of occurrence of offence till date of lodging report under EXP.1 and the said delay is not explained by the PW.1.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 11 of 17

29.Perusal of Ex.P1 report discloses that it is lodged by PW1 on 21-7-2017at about 8:30 PM and the date of occurrence of offence is on 20-07-2017 at about 21:35 hours. the evidence of PW1 discloses that the report under Ex.P1 was lodged on 21-07-2017 at about 20:00 hours.

30.PW2 who is eye witness to the accident had deposed that on same day oral report was given about the accident of vehicle of

PW1 and on next day written report was lodged on 21-7-2017 at 8:30 PM and same is not disputed and denied by way of giving suggestion to PW2 by the learned counsel for the accused that there is no any oral report lodged on 20-07-2017 and that PW2 is deposing false. Therefore, this court do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the accused that there is a delay in lodging report.

31.Here in the present case on hand, I find the evidence of

PW1 and PW2 clearly establishes and proves the manner of accused so rash and negligent while driving the offending vehicle as to endanger human life of PW1 and PW2 when the bus of PW1 was stationed while traffic signal turned red as the driver of the offending vehicle. The identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle is also established and proved before this court by the evidence of PW1 and PW2.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 12 of 17

32.This court relied upon authority reported in 2014 Cri LJ 384 (at page 387) between P.B Desai vs. State of

Maharastra. Where in it is held that the only state of mind which is deserving of punishment is that which demonstrate and intention to cause harm to others, or where there is deliberate willingness to subject others to the risk of harm. Negligent conduct does not entail an intention to cause harm, but only involves a deliberate act subjecting another to the risk of harm where the actor is aware of the existence of risk nonetheless, proceeds in the face of risk. If the conduct in the question involves element of recklessness, the it is punishable and should not be described as mearly the negligent.

33.The manner of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on public way and that the accused driving is so rash and negligent endangering to public safety of others and endangering to human life likely to cause hurt or injury to PW1 and PW2 was clearly deposed before this court by PW1 and PW2 in their evidence before this court and PW1 and PW2 had also deposed about the description of manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and had dashed the stationed vehicle of PW1 at red signal near Narayanaguda fly over and how the vehicle of

PW1 had moved/ shaken at the scene of offence due to dash or hit given by the offending vehicle driven by the accused as driver is clearly disclosing the manner of rash and negligent driving of the

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 13 of 17 accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on public way i.e. near the scene of offence Narayanaguda fly over traffic signal as to endanger the human life or personal safety of others and likely to cause hurt to PW1 and PW2.

34.As discussed supra the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is sufficient to prove that the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle by driving the offending vehicle had driven the offending vehicle in a manner so rash and negligent and had dashed the bus of

PW1 from behind when the bus of PW1 was stationed near scene of offence while traffic signal turned red and had got damaged to the bus of PW1 on its rear portion endangering human life of PW1 and

PW2.

35.In the light of the above said discussion this court is of considered opinion that the conduct of the accused constitutes the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code.

36.Therefore, after appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and with the above said discussion this Court, is of considered opinion that the evidence on record established the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly accused person found guilty of the offence under section 279 of

Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused is convicted to 255(2) of

Cr.P.C.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 14 of 17

POINT NO. 2:

37.In view of my finding given in point no.1 the accused is found guilty for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code.

38.In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused is convicted to 255(2) of Cr.P.C.

There is no case property in this case and hence no order regarding the case property is is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

39.Heard the accused on the question of sentence. The accused has submitted that he is having one son and daughter and that he has previously not committed any offence in his life. The accused prayed this Court to take lenient view while imposing sentence on him.

40.Considering that the accused has caused accident by driving the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed endangering human life in a public way i.e. near the scene of offence, therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or section 360

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 15 of 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the accused. The accused is appraised of his right to prefer appeal against the judgment of this

Court before the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

41.Having regard of the circumstance of the case and submissions made by the accused, this Court deem it proper to sentence the accused to pay a fine for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only), and in default in payment of the said fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.

42.In the result, the accused is found guilty of offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and he is convicted under section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and to pay a fine for the offence under section 279 of Indian Penal

Code of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only), and in default in payment of the said fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The remand period undergone by the accused in judicial custody is nil therefore there is no order with regard to set off is passed. There is no case property available in this case hence no order regarding disposal of case property is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 16 of 17

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1Somalingaiah P.W.2V.Babu P.W.3K.Surender Rao P.W.4Mallesh Yadav P.W.5B.Raju

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1 Report Ex.P-2scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P-3first information report.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

C.C. 743 of 2017 Page 17 of 17

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI, IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C.No. 679 of 2018

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Chikkadpally,

Hyderabad. ... Complainant

A N D

Maktha Vignesh S/o. Late M.Ganesh Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No.1-8-1/EWS/42, EWS quarters, Baghlingampally, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 18.01.2021 in the presence of learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri .P.V. Srinivas, counsel for the accused and after hearing and after 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, Police Station Chikkadpally has filed charge sheet against accused herein for the offences punishable under sections 354(A)(1)(iv), 509, 506 of Indian Penal

Code in Crime No.161/2018.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 27-04-2018 the accused at Baghlingampally, Hyderabad in front of kirana shop of PW1 had intending to insult the modesty of PW1 uttered obscene words against her. Further the accused also criminally intimidated the said complainant by raising threats to her in order to tarnish her

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 1 of 17 reputation/ character and also to kill her if she does not withdraw the case against the brother of the accused by name Narsing in Cr.No.

127/2018 of P.S. Chikkadpally and has also abused PW1 in filthy language stating that “Lanjadana eampikuntave ma anna paina complaint iste eamcheskutavu, ippudu eami pikukuntavu” and has also pointed sexually coloured marks against PW1 by showing the right hand little finger towards the complainant infront of the kirana shop of PW1. Thereafter accused has been charge sheeted for the offences under sections 354(A)(1)(iv), 506 and 509 of Indian Penal

Code.

3.This court took cognizance against the accused for the offences under sections 354(A)(1)(iv), 506, 509 of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of accused, copies of charge sheet and other documents furnished to them under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused examined u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation and the particulars of the offences u/Sec.354(A)(1)(iv), 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to

P.W.6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 documents were marked and MO1 is also marked on behalf of the prosecution.

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence available in prosecution witnesses and he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on his

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 2 of 17 behalf. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8..Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of accused herein for the offences alleged u/Secs.354(A)(1)(iv), 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT:

9. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined total 6 witnesses. The brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:

10.PW1 is the complainant deposed that on 27-4-2018 at about 4

PM accused who is the neighbour of PW1 came in front of her kirana shop in intoxicated state of mind while PW1 was opening the shop and accused was talking over MO.1/phone by seeing PW1 and abusing her as “Lanjadana eampikuntave ma anna paina complaint iste eamcheskutavu, ippudu eami pikukuntavu” to make hear the same to PW1 and after listening the said abusive words, PW1 had called the accused and questioned as to why he was abusing her in filthy language then the accused further abused PW1 in obscene language and then the mother of the accused came there and taken him away to his house. PW1 deposed that the accused had further abused on the way to the house of PW.3’s house and thereafter PW1 had lodged Ex.P1 report.

11.PW2 is the husband of PW1 deposed that PW1 had informed him that on 24-4-2018 at about 03:30 PM the accused came in front

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 3 of 17 of the kirana shop of PW1 in intoxicated state of mind while PW1 was opening her shop and abused PW1 while talking over the MO1 phone to make hear PW1 and abused PW1 infilthy language and had also threatened the PW.1 to withdraw the case against the brother of the accused and thereafter PW1 had reported the incident to Police and lodged report report under EXP.1.

12.PW3 is the mother-in-law of PW1 had deposed that accused is her neighbour and there was petty quarrel between PW1 and the brother of accused prior to this case in the year 2018 and PW1 had lodged report against the brother of the accused. That on 27-4-2018 the accused came in front of the shop of PW1 and was talking over the phone in obscene language to make hear the same to PW1 and the accused had threatened PW1 in filthy language and also abused

PW1 on way to the house of PW3 and when PW3 had questioned accused as to why he is abusing PW1, the accused has not replied and then the PW3 had rang to PW1 to find out the reason and PW1 had informed to PW3 to keep quite and not to speak to accused till

PW1 arrives to house and thereafter PW1 had lodged report under

EXP.1 .

13.PW4 is the independent eye witness deposed that he knows

PW1 to PW3 and on 27-4-2018 at about 4:20 PM he went to kirana shop, EWS Quarters, Baghlingampally and had observed that the accused was talking over MO1 phone infront of the kirana shop of

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 4 of 17

PW1 and was abusing PW1 in filthy language as “Lanjadana eampikuntave ma anna paina complaint iste eamcheskutavu, ippudu eami pikukuntavu” and the same was heard by PW4 personally from the mouth of accused while abusing the same to

PW1.

14.PW5 is the panch witness for scene of offence and seizure of

MO1 had deposed that on 27-04-2018 at about 8:00 PM police had requested him to act as panch witness and accordingly he went to the scene of offence and police appraised him about the facts of the case and has shown CCTV footage of the incident where accused was quarreling with PW1 at EWS Quarters, Baghlingampally, infront of shop of PW1 and the police prepared scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch under Ex.P2 and had taken

PW5 to the police station and seized one cell phone under MO1 from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P3. PW5 during the course of his cross examination deposed that no confession of the accused was made in his presence and no property was recovered. However there is no denial of PW5 with regard to his signature under Ex.P2 and Ex.P5 in respect of confession of accused and seizure of MO1 in his presence and in presence of other panch witness LW6/G.Ramulu.

15. PW6 is the investigating officer deposed about the chronology of investigation. PW6 had further deposed that on 27-4-2018 at

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 5 of 17 about 9:30 PM he has received the report from PW1 under Ex.P1 and basing on the report of PW1 under Ex.P1 he had registered first information report under Ex.P4 for the offences under sections 354(A)(1)(iv) , 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. After registration of the Ex.P4 first information report, PW6 had examined PW1 and

PW2 and recorded their statements and thereafter on the same day, visited the scene of offence at Nallapochamma/ Renuka Ellamma temple, Economic Weaker Section Quarters, Baghlingampally and examined PW3 and PW4 and recorded their statements . PW6 further deposed that PW4 is the eye witness in this case and he resides in the same locality of PW1. PW.6 deposed that he made search for the accused and the accused was apprehended at 10PM near EWS

Quarters, Baghlingampally and affected the arrest of the accused and thereafter prepared rough sketch under Ex.P2 in the presence of

PW5 and LW6/ G.Ramulu and seized MO1 under the cover of Ex.P3 and thereafter brought the accused to the police station produced him for remand. PW6 deposed that during the course of investigation he came to know that previously accused is also involved in crime no. 49/2018 for the offences under section 448, 324, 506, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and the brother of the accused by name Narsing and his friend Shiva is also involved in crime no.

127/2018 for the offences under sections 509 and 506 of Indian

Penal Code of Chikkadpally Police station. PW6 deposed further that during the course of cross examination of PW1 it is revealed that the accused in order to withdrawn the case in crime no. 127/2018 which

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 6 of 17 was lodged against the brother of the accused and his friend Shiva, the present accused had threatened PW1 and abused her in filthy language. There is no suggestion given to PW6 by the learned counsel for accused that Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 is not prepared in presence of PW5 and LW6.G.Ramulu and that MO1 is not seized from the possession of accused in presence of PW5 and LW6/G.Ramulu.

Hence under such circumstances the involvement of MO1 is proved in commission of offence by the accused in this case.

16. As far as the prosecution case is concerned the arguments are advanced by both sides. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and also perused the judicial records carefully.

17.It is argued on behalf of the learned senior Additional Public

Prosecutor that in view of the testimonies of PW1 to PW6 prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is also argued that testimonies of 6 witnesses is un- impeached during the course of cross examination. Hence it is argued that the accused is to be convicted for the offences charged and sentenced as per the law.

18.Per contra it is argued on behalf of the accused that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and has not committed any offence and hence accused is entitled to be acquitted.

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 7 of 17

19.I have perused the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and also perused the statements of the witnesses.

20.Accused was charged for the offences under section 354(A)(1)

(iv), 506 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. The section 506 of Indian

Penal Code prove the punishments for criminal intimidation wherein section 503 of Indian Penal Code defines the criminal intimidation which is as under:

Section 503 of Indian Penal Code:- “Who ever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.”

Section 509 of Indian Penal Code discusses the punishments for word gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. The bare perusal of section 509 of Indian Penal Code speaks that:

“whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any work, makes any sound or gesture shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and also with fine.”

21.Now, I come to the evidence available on the record to prove

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 8 of 17 the charge against the accused. PW1 complainant in the present case as well as the victim has categorically deposed that the accused on 27-4-2018 came infront of her kirana shop while she was opening the shop and the accused had abused PW1 while accused was talking over the MO.1 phone in abusive language as “Lanjadana eampikuntave ma anna paina complaint iste eamcheskutavu, ippudu eami pikukuntavu” and to make hear the same to PW1 and when PW1 had questioned the accused as to why he is abusing in filthy language, then the accused further abused PW1 in obscene language and the accused had threatened the PW1 to withdrawn the case against the brother of the accused and thereafter PW1 had lodged Ex.P1 report.

22. PW2 is the husband of PW1 deposed that PW1 had informed him that the accused came in front of the kirana shop of PW1 in intoxicated state of mind while PW1 was opening her shop and has abused PW1 as “Lanjadana eampikuntave ma anna paina complaint iste eamcheskutavu, ippudu eami pikukuntavu” while talking over the phone to make hear PW1 and had threatened

PW.1 to withdraw the case against the brother of the accused and thereafter PW1 reported the incident to Police and lodged ExP.1 report.

23.PW3 is the mother-in-law of the PW1 had corroborated the version of PW1 that the accused had abused PW1 on 27-04-2018

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 9 of 17 infront of the kirana shop of PW1 and was talking over the phone in abusive language to make hear the same to PW1 and the accused also came near to the house of PW3 and had abused PW1 in filthy language and when PW3 had questioned the accused, the accused did not heed the words of PW3 and then PW3 had rang to PW1 to find out the reason as to why accused abused PW1 and then PW1 informed PW3 to keep quite and not to speak with the accused until

PW1 arrives to the house.

24.PW4 is the independent eye witness also corroborated the version of PW1 that on 27-4-2018 at about 4:20 PM while PW4 was present near the kirana shop of PW1 he had observed that the accused while talking over his MO1/ phone in front of the kirana shop of PW1 was abusing PW1 in filthy language and had also criminally intimidated PW1 to withdraw the case against the brother of the accused and the same was heard personally from the mouth of the accused by PW4.

25.This piece of evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 remains unimpeached even during the cross examination. There is no suggestion put forth to PW1, PW.2 PW3 and PW4 to contradict theses witnesses. The only fact which is proved is that there is a case lodged by PW1 against the brother of the accused by name Narsing in crime no. 127/2018 of P.S. Chikkadpally and the accused had criminally intimidated the PW1 to withdraw the said case against the brother of the accused and had also abused PW1 in filthy language and also had uttered obscene language towards PW1 as

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 10 of 17 “Lanjadana eampikuntave ma anna paina complaint iste eamcheskutavu, ippudu eami pikukuntavu.”

26.In the present case the accused not only has threatened the victim/ PW1 but causes injury to her, he has also uttered obscene language towards PW1 in front of the kirana shop of PW1 to make hear the same to PW1 and same is corroborated by PW3 and PW4 who has personally observed the accused abusing PW1 in filthy language and criminally intimidated to kill PW1 if she does not withdraw the case against the brother of the accused.

27.In my considered view, the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 506(1) and 509 of

Indian Penal Code.

28.That under section 354A of IPC(1) (iv), under which charges have been framed against the accused, states about physical contact and advances both. The use of word 'and' requires that there should be a physical contact with sexual advances/ overtures.

Therefore, the provision is applicable in a situation where the accused does not stop after committing a single isolated act of criminal force but rather goes on to commit several other similar acts which end up converting his actions into advances of a sexual overture.

29.Perusal of report of EXP.1 discloses that the accused had

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 11 of 17 allegedly made sexually coloured remarks against the PW.1 by showing his right hand little finger towards the PW.1/complainant.

30.To decide, if the allegations made by complainant make out a case for offence under section 354A of IPC, it is relevant to look into the ingredients of this offence under section 354A of IPC talks about four kind of acts on the part of accused. It is the first act which is relevant for the purpose of this case. This act is explained in following terms "physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures." The aforesaid language of the required act makes it clear that physical contact has to be coupled with advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.

31.The term 'explicit sexual overture' is very important for the purpose of offence under under section 354A of IPC. Some act of the accused, which is not explicit with sexual overture, but is assumed to be done with foul intentions by the complainant, cannot be covered under section 354A of IPC IPC. The act of accused has to be explicit rather than implied. It would be a different thing to say that complainant did not like act of the accused or that she was not comfortable with the alleged act of the accused/ petitioner. Every kind of physical contact cannot be covered under section 354A of

IPC. Had it been the case that accused had made sexually coloured

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 12 of 17 remarks against the PW.1 by showing his right hand little finger towards the complainant despite explicit forbiddance on the part of complainant, then there could have been some ground to assume that the alleged physical contact with complainant in the form of showing his right hand little finger towards the PW.1/complainant was embedded with some sexual intentions. However, it is not the case herein.

32.There is no evidence of PW.1/Complainant reiterating the alleged fact regarding making of sexually coloured remarks against the PW.1 by showing his right hand little finger towards the

PW.1/complainant and there is no allegation of physical contact and advances which involved use of criminal force or any unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. There is also no evidence of prosecution before the court that accused had ever committed physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or making sexually coloured remarks against the

PW.1 by showing his right hand little finger towards the

PW.1/complainant . Therefore, the offence charged against the accused for the offence under section 354(A)(1)(iv) is not proved.

33In the light of the above said discussion this court is of considered opinion that the conduct of the accused constitutes the offence under sections 506(1) and 509 of Indian Penal Code as there

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 13 of 17 is no overtacts to kill PW1 in my considered view prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under secton 506(1) and 509 of Indian Penal Code. The accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 354(A)(1)(iv) of Indian Penal

Code.

34.Therefore, after appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and with the above said discussion this Court, is of considered opinion that the evidence on record established the offences under section 506(1) and section 509 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly accused person found guilty of the offences under sections 506(1), 509 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused is convicted to 248(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 354(A)(1)(iv) of Indian Penal Code.

POINT NO. 2:

35.In view of my finding given in point no.1 the accused is found guilty for the offence under sections 506(1) and 509 of Indian Penal

Code 39.

36.In the result, accused is found guilty of the offences under section 506(1) and 509 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused is convicted to 248(2) of Cr.P.C The accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 354(A)(1)(iv) of Indian Penal

Code.

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 14 of 17

MO1 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal time and ordered to be sold in public auction and the sale proceeds to be deposited in Government treasury.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

37.Heard the accused herein on the quantum of sentence by explaining the punishment prescribed for the offences proved u/Secs. 506(1) and 509 of Indian Penal Code. The accused requested to take lenient view in passing the sentence. Whereas learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused prays the court to extend the benefit of provisions u/Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders

Act.

38.Considering the submissions of the accused and the counsel for the accused, I have taken into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and it is the offence against woman, so that I am not inclined to extend the benefit of Sec.4 of Probation of Offenders Act. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered opinion that a simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 506(1) of

Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 506(1) of Indian Penal Code of Indian

Penal Code and a simple imprisonment for one year for the offence

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 15 of 17 under section 509 of Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 509 of Indian

Penal Code of Indian Penal Code would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

39.Accordingly accused herein is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence u/Sec.506(1) of

Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of the fine, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 506(1) of Indian Penal

Code and simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under section 509 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of payment of fine, accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under section 509 of Indian Penal Code of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences shall run concurrently and judicial remand period if any shall be set off under section 248 Cr.P.C. Furnish a copy of the judgment to the accused herein at free of cost and it is informed to the accused that he got right to prefer appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 16 of 17

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1Sujatha P.W.2B.Praveen Kumar P.W.3B.Manemma P.W.4Manoj P.W.5Kranthi Kumar P.W.6Anjaneyulu

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1Complaint. Ex.P-2scene observation panchanama. Ex.P-3seizure report. Ex.P-4first information report.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1:One cell phone vide P.I.No. 62/2018.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

C.C. 679 of 2018 Page 17 of 17

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE :

AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI, IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C.No. 804 of 2016

Between:

The State through The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Chikkadpally,

Hyderabad. ... Complainant

A N D

V.Ramesh S/o. Late Swamy, Aged about 25 years R/o. H.No. 13-3-506/329, MCH Colony, Jiyaguda, Hyderabad. … Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 29.01.2021 in the presence of learned Sr. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.G.Bhaskar, counsel for the accused and after hearing and after 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, Police Station Chikkadpally has filed charge sheet against accused herein for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.276/2016.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 17-6-2016 at about 9:30 PM the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.

MCH mini lorry bearing No. AP-11V-155 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from Ashoknagar side towards RTC X roads in a high speed and dashed the deceased by name M.Sadanandam S/o.

Late Rajaiah who was crossing the road opposite to Vijay Medical

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 1 of 16

Hall, Jawaharnagar, Chikkadpally due to which the deceased received head injury and thereafter the police Chikkadpally had shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital through 108 ambulance.

Thereafter the defacto-complainant/ PW1 had lodged report under

Ex.P1 and basing on the report of PW1 a case was registered against the accused for the offence under section 338 of Indian Penal Code.

Thereafter PW7 had examined PW1 and recorded her statement, visited the scene of offence situated at opposite to Vijaya Medical

Hall, Jawahar Nagar, Chikkadpally and prepared scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch in the presence of PW4 and

LW7/K.Devraj under the cover of Ex.P3. During the course of investigation PW7 received telephonic message from Gandhi

Hospital that while the deceased was undergoing treatment had succumbed to injuries. Therefore, PW7 altered the section of law from 338 of Indian Penal Code to 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

Thereafter PW7 secured the presence of PW2 and LW9.S.Mahender and conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased under the cover of Ex.P2. PW6 thereafter conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued post mortem report under

Ex.P5. That on 17/18-6-2016 at about 00:15 hours a complaint was received through 100 dial from PW3 stating that at the time of the accident PW3 was present near Vijaya Medical Hall, Jawaharnagar.

PW7 after obtaining the particulars, apprehended the accused and effected the arrest of the accused and produced the accused for remand and thereafter PW7 had sent the offending vehicle for inspection and PW5 had issued motor vehicle inspection report under Ex.P4. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code.

3.This court took cognizance of the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 304(A) of Indian Penal Code.

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 2 of 16

4.On appearance of accused, copies of charge sheet and other documents were furnished to him under Sec.207 Code of Criminal

Procedure Code.

5.Accused was examined under section 251 of Code of Criminal

Procedure Code by explaining the substance of accusation and the particulars of the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution P.W.1 to

P.W.7 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 documents were marked .

7.After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence available in prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of accused herein for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code alleged of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts ?

POINT:1

9.It is the specific case of prosecution that the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. MCH mini lorry bearing No. AP- 11V-155 had drove the same in a rash and negligent manner from

Ashoknagar side towards RTC X roads in a high speed and dashed

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 3 of 16 the deceased by name M.Sadanandam S/o. Late Rajaiah who was crossing the road opposite to Vijay Medical Hall, Jawaharnagar,

Chikkadpally due to which the deceased received head injury and thereafter the police Chikkadpally had shifted the deceased to

Gandhi Hospital through 108 ambulance. Thereafter the defacto- complainant/ PW1 had lodged report under Ex.P1.

10. The defence of the accused is that the offending vehicle is not involved in the accident of the deceased and that the accused was not the driver of the vehicle that dashed the deceased.

11.To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined total 7 witnesses. The brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:

12.PW1 is the widow of the deceased and circumstantial witness deposed that on 17-6-2016 at about 9:30 PM deceased went for consuming cigarette after having the dinner and did not return to home and she waited till next day morning but the deceased did not returned and then she made efforts to search the deceased and then she informed the police that the deceased is missing and the police informed that there is accident occurred near Chikkadpally police station and asked her to verify the identity of the person met with an accident who was shifted to Gandhi hospital and then PW1 went to Gandhi Hospital and found that her husband was lying on

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 4 of 16 the bed in coma stage and then she presented Ex.P1 report. PW1 deposed that at the time of accident she was present inside her house and the scene of accident is located at a distance of 10 minutes on foot from her house.

13.PW2 is the panch witness for inquest over the dead body of the deceased M.Sadanandam deposed that the deceased died due to accident hit by GHMC van and on 21-6-2016 he was summoned by the police in Gandhi Hospital near mortuary for inquest over the dead body of the deceased M.Sadanandam and in his presence inquest was conducted under Ex.P2 and he subscribed his signature along with other panch witness by name Mahender.

14.PW3 is the eye witness deposed that on 17-6-2016 at about 12 ’O’ clock mid night he was present near the Sahara Bakery near RTC X roads and had seen the deceased returning after having cool drink from the said bakery and while he was crossing the road at Jawaher Nagar, at that time one lorry of GHMC came from

Ashoknagar and had hit the deceased due to which the deceased fell down and sustained head injury. PW3 deposed that the driver of the offending vehicle after stopping the lorry near the scene of offence had fled away and he had seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and can identify him. PW3 identified the accused who was present in the court hall as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. PW3 has also deposed

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 5 of 16 that at the time of accident the street light available on the road due to which he could see the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident.

15.There is no cross examination to PW3 to destroy the creditworthiness of his testimony before this court.

16.PW4 is the panch witness for scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch deposed that on 18-7-2016 at about 6:30 PM he was summoned by the police PW7 and in his presence scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch under Ex.P3 was prepared and he subscribed his signature on the same.

17.PW5 is the motor vehicle inspector who inspected the offending vehicle and issued motor vehicle inspection report opining that the offending vehicle is not having any mechanical defect.

18.PW6 is the doctor deposed that on 21-6-2016 she received requisition from the SHO, Chikkadpally to conduct autopcy over the dead body of M.Sadanandam and accordingly she conducted autopcy on the same day opining that the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury and he died at Gandhi Hospital on 21- 6-2016 and accordingly issued Ex.P5 post mortem report.

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 6 of 16

19.PW7 is the investigating officer deposed that on 18-6-2016 at about 10:30 hours LW13/Purender Reddy had received a report from PW1 under Ex.P1 and basing on Ex.P1 he has registered a case in crime no. 276/2016 for the offence under section 338 of Indian

Penal Code and issued Ex.P6 FIR and thereafter he handed over the case diary file to PW7. Thereafter on receipt of case diary file, PW7 had examined PW1 and recorded her statement and visited the scene of offence situated at Vijaya Medical Hall, Jawaharnagar,

Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence and also conducted scene observation panchanama under Ex.P3 in the presence of PW4 and LW7/Dhiraj and found one lorry bearing No.

AP-11V-155 for which the original registration number is AP-11U- 0155 parked near the scene of offence and thereafter he received information about the demise of the deceased on telephonic message from Gandhi Hospital and thereafter he altered the section of law from section 338 of Indian Penal Code to section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code and sent the deceased for post mortem examination and received post mortem report under Ex.P5. PW7 deposed that he received phone call under dial 100 from PW3 on 22- 06-2016 and recorded his statement in the police station and thereafter effected the arrest of the accused on 5-7-2016 and sent a requisition for inspection of the offending vehicle and received report under Ex.P4. Thereafter completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A of

Indian Penal Code.

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 7 of 16

20.PW7 deposed that at the time of accident there was no eye witness and hence he has not examined any person near the scene of accident and has examined PW3 who is eye witness on 22- 6-2016 who informed about the accident through dial 100 phone and denied that the evidence of PW3 is created for the purpose of this case.

19. Section 304A was inserted by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1870 (Act XXVII of 1870) and reads thus; 304-A. Causing death by negligence Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Similarly, to constitute an offence punishable under Section 304A IPC, it is necessary that the death is caused by rashness or negligence.

The following observation of the Honourable Supreme Court in

Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. reported as (2008) 1 SCC 791 to determine whether the act of the accused was rash and negligent:

"7. Section 304-A IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done, in all probabilities, will cause death. This provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. Section 304-A applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly the cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 8 of 16 elements under Section 304-A.

8. Section 304-A carves out a specific offence where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under Section 300 . If a person willfully drives a motor vehicle into the midst of a crowd and thereby causes death to some person, it will not be a case of mere rash and negligent driving and the act will amount to culpable homicide. Doing an act with the intent to kill a person or knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death is culpable homicide. When the intent or knowledge is the direct motivating force of the act, Section 304-A has to make room for the graver and more serious charge of culpable homicide. The provision of this section is not limited to rash or negligent driving. Any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are rashness/negligence; a person may cause death by a rash or negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all. Negligence and rashness to be punishable in terms of

Section 304-A must be attributable to a state of mind wherein the criminality arises because of no error in judgment but of a deliberation in the mind risking the crime

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 9 of 16 as well as the life of the person who may lose his life as a result of the crime. Section 304-A discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practice such rashness or negligence which may cause the death of other. The death so caused is not the determining factor.

9. What constitutes negligence has been analyzed in

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition) Volume 34 paragraph 1 (p. 3) as follows:

"1. General principles of the law of negligence- Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand.

What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 10 of 16 of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger; the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two."

20.In the present case on hand, the evidence of PW6 coupled with the recitals of EXP.5 proves that the cause of death of the deceased M.Sadanandam is due to head injury.

21.The testimony of PW3 is on account of an eye witness and the same discloses that he had personally witnessed the accident of the deceased who was crossing the road near

Jawaharnagar and the GHMC Lorry came in a high speed from

Ashoknagar and had hit the deceased due to which deceased fell down and sustained head injury and he has seen the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly he had identified the accused

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 11 of 16

before this court as the driver of the offending vehicle.

22.Learned counsel for the accused argued that PW7 had categorically admitted before this court that at the time of accident there was no eye witness and hence he has not examined any person near the scene of accident and that there is no record available with the investigating officer PW7 to show that PW3 was present at the time of the accident of the deceased and had personally witnessed the accident and the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and that the evidence of PW3 is created by investigating officer for the purpose of this case.

23.Admittedly there is no cross examination to PW3 by the learned counsel for the accused that PW3 was not present at the time of accident and had not personally witnessed the accident and the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the accused.

24.The evidence of PW.3 remained in tact as he was not cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused. Thus the evidence of PW.3 proves involvement of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle in the accident of the deceased

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 12 of 16

25. Now the cause of death of the deceased is due to head injury sustained by him in the accident having dashed by the offending vehicle driven by the accused while he was crossing is proved by the prosecution. The evidence of PW3 shows that he had seen the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Hence non holding of test identification parade of the accused in presence of PW.3 by PW.7 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution that he did not have any opportunity to observe the facial features of the accused before he fled away.

26.The fact that the offending vehicle was not having the mechanical defect is established through the evidence of PW5 motor vehicle inspector who issued Ex.P4 motor vehicle inspection report opining that the offending vehicle is not suffering with any mechanical defect.

27.The evidence of PW3 established beyond all reasonable doubt that the offending vehicle is involved in the accident of the deceased and the accused was the driver of the said offending vehicle at the time of the accident of the deceased.

28.Therefore, with the above said discussion, this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and that the prosecution has proved that the accident of the

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 13 of 16 deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused and that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of the prosecution and against the accused.

29.In view of the finding of this court in point no.1, this court concludes that the accused is found guilty of commission of the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly this point is answered in favour of prosecution and against the accused.

Point No.2:

30.In the result, accused is found guilty of the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly the accused is convicted under section 255(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

31.Heard the accused on the question of sentence. The accused has submitted that he is having age old mother and growing children and he is sole bread winner of his family. The

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 14 of 16 accused has prayed this Court to take lenient view in imposing sentence on him, and he reported that he has no evidence to adduce on the question of sentence to be imposed on him.

32.In view of the circumstance of this case and in the light of the submissions made by the accused and in the rash and negligent in which the accused has caused the accident of the deceased, this

Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of the provisions of the section 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, or section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the accused. This Court deem it proper that the ends of justice would meet on imposition of sentence on the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one years and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default in payment of said fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 15 days for the offence under section 304-A of the Indian Penal

Code. There is no remand period to be set off as per section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no case property in this case.

Hence no order passed regarding disposal of case property.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 15 of 16

P.W.1Medipally Sharada P.W.2V.Ramesh P.W.3Shravan Kumar P.W.4Sridhar P.W.5G.Praneeth Kumar P.W.6P.Vanishri P.W.7M.Mallaiah

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1Complaint. Ex.P-2Inquest Report. Ex.P-3scene observation panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P-4motor vehicle inspection report. Ex.P-5postmortem report. Ex.P-6first information report. Ex.P-7section alteration report.

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

HYDERABAD

C.C. 804 of 2016 Page 16 of 16

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE : AT HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SMT. P. LAKSHMI KUMARI, IX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

This the 12th DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

C.C.No. 475/2017

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of police, Chikkadpally P.S.,

Hyderabad ... Complainant

A N D

G.Krishna S/o. G.V.Ellaiah, aged about 60 yrs R/o. H.No.6-1-1-854, Padma Rao Nagar,

Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. ... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 07-01- 2021 in the presence of Learned Sr. A.P.P, for the State and

Sri.G.Seetharama Rao and Sri.G.Bhaskar, counsels for the accused and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The SI of Police, PS Chikkadpally has filed charge sheet against the accused herein for the offence punishable u/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal code in Crime No.72/2017.

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 1 of 11

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on on 02-03-2017 at about 06:00 hours PW2 had lodged a report stating that on 13-01-2017 at about 17:30 hours near

Azamabad bus stop, when PW2 and her father were going on the two wheeler bearing no. AP-09BR-9203 to a movie at RTC

X roads and when they reached Azamabad bus stop one car bearing no. TS-09UA-5933 came in rash and negligent manner and hit the bike of PW2 on the right side and sped away from the place, due to which PW2 and her father fell down on the road and her father became unconscious with bleeding injuries. Thereafter with the help of passersby PW2 shifted her father to Gandhi Hospital and while undergoing treatment

PW2’s father succumbed to injuries. Thereafter PW2 lodged report before the police. Basing on the report of PW2, PW7 had registered a case in crime no. 72/2017 for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter PW7 examined PW2 and LW2/K.Abhishek and recorded their statements. On 02-03-2017, PW7 proceeded to Gandhi

Hospital and conducted inquest panchanama in presence of

PW3 and LW9/Suhas and thereafter on 03-03-2017 he visited scene of offence situated at Azamabad bus stop and conducted scene observation panchanama and drafted rough sketch in presence of PW4 and LW7/A.Ravinder. On 09-03-

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 2 of 11 2017 PW7 apprehended accused at his house and served 41-A

Cr.P.C. Thereafter PW7 sent requisition for inspection of offending vehicle and received report and he also received postmortem report from PW5. Thereafter completion of investigation PW7 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

3This court took cognizance against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of accused copies of charge sheet and other documents supplied to him under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation and the particulars of the offence u/Sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During course of trial, to prove the case against the accused herein the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6.

7.After conclusion of the evidence on behalf of prosecution, accused has been examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence to him, but he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of both sides.

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 3 of 11

9.Now the point for consideration is

Whether the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of accused herein for the offence alleged under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 2-3-2017

PW2 had lodged reported stating that on 13-1-2017 at about 5:30 PM she along with her deceased father were going to a movie on two wheeler bearing No. AP-09BR-9203 at RTC X

Road and when they reached near Azamabad bus stop, crime vehicle bearing No. TS-09UA-5933 came in rash and negligent manner had hit the bike of PW2 on the right side and the driver of the crime vehicle had sped away from there immediately and that due to accident PW2 and her deceased father became unconscious with bleeding injuries and the left hand bone of PW2 got fractured and with the help of local people, PW2 and her deceased father were shifted to Gandhi

Hospital and from there for better treatment father of PW2 was shifted to Yashodha Hospital where deceased while undergoing treatment died and therefore, PW2 had lodged report.

11.The defence of the accused is that the accused never caused any accident and never drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and a false is registered by the police against the accused at the instance of PW2.

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 4 of 11

12.To prove the case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses. PW1 is the wife of the deceased deposed that on 13-1-2017 at about 5:30 PM PW2 along with her deceased father proceeded to cinema towards RTC X Roads on two wheeler and when they reached to Azamabad bus stop, a car bearing No. 5933 had came in rash and negligent manner and hit the bike due to which the deceased and PW2 fell down on the ground and the deceased sustained grevious injuries and

PW2 sustained minor injuries. PW1 deposed that she received phone call about the accident through PW2 and then PW1 had rushed to Gandhi Hospital.

13.PW2 is the complainant and the daughter of PW1 deposed that on 13-1-2017 at about 5:30 PM PW2 along with her deceased father had proceeded on two wheeler bearing

No. AP-09BR-9203 from their home to movie towards RTC X

Roads and when they reached near Azamabad bus stop, one car bearing No. 5933 came in rash and negligent manner from left side and had hit their two wheeler and then PW2 and her deceased father fell down unconscious and after few minutes,

PW2 got conscious and informed the incident to nearby police and her deceased father was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. PW2 deposed that she received injuries on her left hand and deceased received injuries on his chest in the said accident

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 5 of 11 and further deposed that she cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

14.PW3 is the panch witness for the inquest deposed that on 02-3-2017 he was summoned by the police to attend Gandhi

Hospital mortuary room for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased Ramesh and PW3 accordingly attended and had observed that the deceased sustained injury over his chest, legs and hands and prepared inquest report under

Ex.P6.

15.PW4 is the panch witness for scene observation panchanama deposed that on 3-3-2018 he was summoned by the police to attend Azamabad signal and in his presence and in the presence of other panch witness, Ex.P2 scene observation panchanama was prepared along with rough sketch. PW4 deposed further that he was attended the police station as per the request of the police and denied that Ex.P2 was prepared in the police station and not near the scene of offence and that he signed on blank paper under Ex.P2.

16.PW5 is the doctor who has issued postmortem report opined that the deceased died due to complications of blunt injuries in chest and accordingly issued Ex.P3 postmortem report.

17.PW6 Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that there is no

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 6 of 11 mechanical defect in the crime vehicle and accordingly issued

Ex.P4 Motor Vehicle Inspection report.

18.PW7 is the investigating officer deposed about the chronology of the investigation. The evidence of PW7 discloses that an accident has been taken place in this case at about 5:00 PM on 13-01-2017 at Azamabad traffic signal and he received report on 2-3-2017 under Ex.P1 and PW7 issued

Ex.P5 first information report and he has not collected any

CCTV footage of scene of offence during his course of investigation and has not captured the photograps of damage of the crime vehicle and has not seized the registration certificate and driving license of the crime vehicle.

19.It has been suggested to PW2 that during the course of cross examination on behalf of the accused that no accident has been taken place near the scene of offence, but there is no suggestion given to PW2 that accused never drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, however PW2 deposed that she has personally witnessed the accident and that crime vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner.

The said fact deposed by PW2 is not disputed or denied by the learned counsel for the accused by way of giving suggestions to PW2, this suggestion given to PW2 though denied by PW2 reinforces the case of the prosecution about the accidental

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 7 of 11 death of the deceased on 13-1-2017 about 5:30 PM as a result of rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and the injuries sustained by deceased in the road accident at the scene of accident and about the involvement of crime vehicle in causing death of the deceased but the evidence of PW2 do not prove that accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident of the deceased. Now the prosecution has to prove the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle.

20.PW2 is said to be eyewitness to the accident of the deceased with the crime vehicle has clearly deposed before the court that she has not seen the driver of the crime vehicle that has dashed the deceased.

21.PW1 is the wife of the deceased categorically deposed that she came to know about the accident only through PW2 and she has not personally witnessed the accident.

22.Admittedly PW1 and PW2 had not observe the driver of the crime vehicle that is involved in the accident of the deceased. The evidence of PW7 investigating officer indicates that the accident has been taken place near Azamabad traffic signals and it is not the case of PW7 there is no CCTV camera installed near the scene of offence i.e. Azamabad traffic signal. PW7 has not examined any person near the scene of offence and has not collected any CCTV footage from the

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 8 of 11 camera that was installed at the scene of accident regarding the identity of driver of crime vehicle involved in the accident of the deceased.

23.Even the prosecution did not examine the alleged person who had shifted the deceased to the hospital to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle involved at the accident of the deceased. Therefore, it can be said that the evidence of the prosecution is suffering with several infirmities and the evidence of the prosecution adduced against the accused is found to be wholly unreliable and accordingly accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

Point no.2:

24.In view of my finding in point no.1 the accused is found not guilty for commission of offence punishable under section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

25.In the result, the accused herein is found not guilty of offence u/Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal code and he is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months according to the

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 9 of 11 provisions of section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. There is no property involved in this case hence no order regarding the case property is passed.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr-II, transcribed and typed by

her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12th day of January, 2021.

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1K.Chitra

P.W.2K.Sai Chandana

P.W.3T.Harinath Rao

P.W.4C.Sai Sharma

P.W.5P.Vanishri

P.W.6T.Bharath Singh

P.W.7M.Mallaiah

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Report

Ex.P2Scene observation panchanama long with rough sketch.

Ex.P3 Postmortem report.

Ex.P4Motor vehicle inspection report.

Ex.P5First Information Report

Ex.P6Inquest panchanama

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 10 of 11

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

IX ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

HYDERABAD.

C.C. 475 of 2017 Page 11 of 11