1 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT :
GODAVARIKHANI
Present:Sri.P.Pradeep Naik,
Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
FAC: II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani
FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2016
CALANDER CASE No.123 of 2015 (New)
CALANDER CASE No.86 of 2010 (Old)
Between:
The state through the Station House Officer, Traffic Police Station, Ramagundam (Cr. No.13 of 2010) …Complainant AND Thandra Rajender, S/o.Pochaiah, Age: 28 years, Caste: Mala, R/o.Neerukulla village, Sulthanabad Mandal. … Accused
This case is coming on 15.11.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri B.Balakrishna prasad, Advocate for Accused, having been heard both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court made the following:
: : J U D G M E N T : :
1.The Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station, Ramagundam has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304A IPC.
2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 27.01.2010 at 20.00 hours Chinthala
Srinivas (LW1/Complainant) came to Traffic Police Station, Ramagundam and lodged a complaint against the accused stated that, the deceased No.1 is younger brother of complainant and residing at Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani and doing a business and the deceased No.2 and 3 are brother and sister, they are native of Pedda Pendyala village of Warangal District. The deceased No.2 and 3 came to Godavarikhani from their village to their grand father's house along with their parents to celebrate the
Sammakka Saralamma Jathara at Godavarikhani. On 27012010 the deceased No.1 left from his house on Honda Active vehicle bearing No.AP15AJ/6134 along with deceased No.2 and 3 to see the NTPC Town ship. After seeing the same while they are returning to his house at Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani via Gouthaminagar, FCI, on the 2 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) way at about 17.30 hours when they reached in front of Mathangi Colony board near
Alekya Talkies, mean while from their back side the accused /driver of the lorry bearing No.AP36T/2727 drove his lorry in rash and negligent manner and gave a dash to the Honda Active of the deceased No.1 to 3, due to which the deceased No.1 to 3 fell down on the ground along with their vehicle and the crime vehicle lorry run over them, as a result the deceased No.1 to 3 sustained fatal bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Basing on the complaint lodged by the complainant, the police registered a case U/Sec.304A IPC. After investigation of the case, charge sheet was filed for the offence U/Sec.304A IPC against accused.
3.The case was taken on file as (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) New C.C No.123 of 2015 against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304A IPC.
4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents are supplied to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.PC.
5.The accused was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.PC. By explaining the substance of the accusation for the offence U/Sec.304A IPC, read over and explained the same to the accused, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.To prove its case the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 12, got marked Ex.P1 to
P11 on its behalf.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused is examined U/Sec.313
Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material available against him, for which he denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defense evidence.
8.Heard arguments on both sides.
9.Now the point for consideration is:
10.POINT No:1 Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable Under Section 304A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?
3 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
POINT No1: To prove this case, the prosecution has examined Pw1 to 12 and got marked Ex.P1 to P11. PW1/ Complainant deposed that on 27012010 in the evening hours his deceased brother Chintala Ramesh and nephew Vinay, and his niece
Shirisha went on Honda Activa bike bearing No. AP15AJ6134 from Thilaknagar to
NTPC temple. He got information through police that they met with an accident near
Alkeya Theater and died on the spot. Immediately he along with his family member rushed to the place of accident and found three of them died. The vehicle Honda
Activa was damaged. He came to know through the eye witnesses Kumar and Kishore that one lorry came in very high speed and dashed Honda Activa. The driver of the lorry fled away by leaving the lorry bearing No.AP36T2727, The lorry was parked at some what distance to the place of accident. He lodged complaint to the police i.e.,
Ex.P1 is the complaint.
On his dictation some person at police station has drafted Ex.P1. The person who's drafted Ex.P1 is the not the police. He do not know the said person. He admitted that he did not stated in Ex.P1 or in 161 statements that the police informed him about the accident. Two persons permitted to travel on two wheeler, three persons traveled on Hero Honda Activa. Police examined him at 8.00 p.m. The S.I of police examined him and recorded his statement. He was present for about 9.30 p.m at police station.
11.PW2 deposed that on 26012010 he along with his family members came to
Godavarikhani to inlaws house for Medaram Jatara. On 27012010 at 5.00 p.m his brotherinlaw took his daughter and son on Honda Activa to a near by temple. One constable came to house of PW1 and informed him that the Hero Honda Activa on which his brotherinlaw along with his children went, is met with an accident.
Immediately he went to the place of accident near Alekya Theater. Hid daughter and son along with his brotherinlaw died on the spot. LW6 and 7 are witnessed the accident. He inquired them about the accident. They informed him that one lorry came in a very high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Hero Honda 4 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Activa from behind. Due to the said accident his son and daughter along with his brotherinlaw died on the spot. The Hero Honda Activa was thrown to a certain distance. The crime vehicle lorry was stationed near the place of accident. The crime vehicle lorry is bearing No. AP36T2727.
In his crossexamination PW2 deposed that he came to know around 5.30 p.m.
He do not know the name of the constable who informed him about the accident. He denied that his brotherinlaw drove the Hero Honda Activa in a rash and negligent manner and he do not know the driving and he himself fell down on the road. He denied that the crime vehicle lorry is no way concerned with the accident and one unknown vehicle dashed to the Hero Honda Activa. He denied that for the purpose of compensation the crime vehicle is involved in the said accident.
12.PW3 deposed that he know LW7 Challa Sai Kishore. On 27012010 while he along with his friend were moving on bike from NTPC to Alekya theatre on the way at
Mathangi Colony board a lorry bearing No.AP36D2727 has over taken them in rash and negligent manner and has in an high speed dashed a motorcyclist on Honda
Activa which was moving in front of them. Due to which, the said motorcyclist and two children who were on Honda Activa fell down and sustained severe injuries. Whereas the lorry did not stopped and the driver has stopped it at a distance of 100 meters ahead from the spot. They tried to catch the lorry driver, but by the time they reached lorry, the driver dropped from the lorry and ran away. They noticed the dead bodies of motorcyclist and two children. The said accident and death occurred due to rash and negligent act of lorry driver. He identify the lorry driver shown to him in the open court as the said lorry driver. He came to know the name of accused as Thandla Rajender through the police.
In his crossexamination PW3 deposed that he started from NTPC at about 4.30 p.m. It took 20 minutes for him to reach Alekhya theatre. The distance between the place from where he have started and Alekhya theatre is approximately 5 to 6 5 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) kilometers. He admitted the distance between highway and Alekhya theater is 1 kilometer. Witness added that he started from Annapurna Colony, NTPC which is approximately distance about 5 to 6 kilometers. Around 10 to 15 people surrounded and gathered at the scene of offense. They reached Alekhya theater at about 4.50 to 5.00 p.m.
In further crossexamination PW3 deposed that on 27012010 at about 5.00 p.m at police station, Traffic Ramagundam, the police examined him and recorded his statement. After the incident on the same day at 7.00 p.m the police examined him.
He denied that the police not examined him on 28012010. After the incident they reached the spot within two to three minutes. He came to this court for six times to give evidence, at that time the police persons told him that the person who is standing in the open court is the accused, and on the instructions of police he said that the person is the accused. Witness added that he saw the accused at the place of incident, while he was running after the occurrence of incident. Police never called him to identify the accused for test identification parade. He never told the particulars of the accused to the police. He denied that they never tried to catch the accused but he fled away from the scene of offense. The statement given under 161 Cr.P.C that his friend i.e., PW4 tried to catch the accused and he deposed the same to the police is true and whereas the statement given before the court that they tried to catch the accused at the scene of offence is false. He denied that on the instruction of police he identified the accused in this court. He denied that the deceased No.1 did not know driving so he himself fell down on the ground and some unknown vehicle hit the deceased and to claim compensation the case is filed intentionally and he is deposing false as the deceased No.1 is his friend. He denied that the accused person is no way concerned to this accident. He denied that he did not inform police that he can identify the accused if shown to him. He denied that in 161 Cr.P.C statement last two lines were inserted by the police and as per their instruction he is deposing false that he can identify the accused if shown to him.
6 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
13.PW4 deposed that on 27012010 while he along with his friend were moving on bike from NTPC to Alekya theater on the way at Mathangi Colony board a lorry bearing
No. AP36D2727 has over taken them in rash and negligent manner and has in an high speed dashed a motorcyclist on Honda Activa which was moving in front of them.
Due to which, the said motorcyclist and two children who were on Honda Activa fell down and sustained severe injuries. Whereas the lorry did not stop and the driver has stopped it in a distance of 100 meters ahead from the spot. They tried to catch the lorry driver, but by the time they reached lorry the driver dropped from the lorry and ran away. They noticed the dead bodies of motorcyclist and two children. The said accident and death occurred due to rash and negligent act of lorry driver. He identified the accused in the open court as the said lorry driver. He came to know the name of accused as Rajender through the police.
In his crossexamination PW4 deposed that he is working in Srinivasa Medical
Agency situated at Markandeya Colony, Godavarikhani. He have no acquaintance with the deceased, after the incident he came to know the deceased No.1 is his junior in school days. The accident took place on 27012010 at that time he along with PW3 were coming from NTPC to Godavarikhani through Matangi Colony. They started at 4.30 pm to 5.00 pm at NTPC. The distance between NTPC to Alekya Theatre is about 1 ½ kilometer. He denied that the distance between NTPC to Alekya theater is about 1 kilometer only. He reached the scene of offense within half an hour i.e., at about 5.00 p.m. The lorry came from his back side and hit the vehicle of deceased No.1. He denied that there is no accident took place at 5.00 pm. Witness added that he cannot say particular time of incident it may occurred at 5.00 pm. When he reached the scene of offense there were 10 members gathered. On the same day i.e., on 27012010 the police examined him at police station at 7.00 p.m. He denied that police did not examine him on 27012010. At the time of incident he was present at the distance of 100 meters from the scene of offence. He do not know the accused prior to the incident. He saw the accused at the time of accident at the scene of offense. Police 7 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) never called him to test identification parade to identify the accused. The deceased
No.1 is not his friend and he never stated before police as per lines marked in 161
Cr.P.C statement. Ex.D1 and D2 are the portions marked in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of
PW4. He denied that the deceased No.1 did not know driving the vehicle so he himself fell down on the ground and some unknown vehicle hit the deceased and to claim compensation the case is filed intentionally and he is deposing false as the deceased
No.1 is his friend. He never told the particulars of the accused to the police. He denied that the accused person is no way concerned to this accident. He denied that he is not the eye witness to the incident and he is deposing false to help the decease's family.
14.PW5 deposed that on 27012010 at about 4.30 pm he was proceeding from
Mathangi Colony board where the public were surrounded at an accident occurred on the road, police asked him to act as punch. He noticed dead bodies of an adult and two minors and crushed Honda Activa, blood and inner parts of the body were out broken from the dead body and he also noticed the lorry. The lorry was located at the distance of 50 feet from the scene of offense. Police drafted Crime Detail Form and rough sketch after knowing its contents he attested his signature over it. Ex.P2 is crime detail form.
In his crossexamination PW5 deposed that he is a private employee, traffic police called him on 27012010 at 08.00 pm to the scene of offense near Mathangi
Colony, Godavarikhani. Police obtained his two signatures on written papers. He denied that the police obtained his signatures on printed proforma paper. He cannot say the particulars of the columns in Ex.P2. He denied that Crime Detail Form along with rough sketch not prepared in his presence. He admitted that there is no signature on rough sketch belongs to him. He denied the formal suggestions.
15.PW6 deposed that on 28012010 he was present at Govt. Area Hospital
Godavarikhani for check up of his wife, in the meanwhile he was asked by the police to act as punch, accordingly he was taken to the mortuary room and in his presence 8 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased No.1 Chintala Ramesh and deceased No.2 Pittala Vinay. He observed injuries over the faces and oozing blood from ears of deceased No.1, whereas Pittala Vinay sustained head injury and crush of his stomach and the intestines. After recording inquest he attested his signature over it.
Ex.P3 and P4 are signatures of witness on inquests of deceased No.1 and 2 respectively.
In his crossexamination PW6 deposed that previously he worked as contractor at NTPC. He was called by police around 6.00 am and he was there at the time of inquest for about 4 hours. The inquest was recorded on plain white papers, but not on printed formats. He cannot say how many pages were used for recording inquest. He denied that he is stock witness to the police and that he is deposing at the instance of police.
16.PW7 deposed that at about four years back police called him to the Area
Hospital, Godavarikhani, where he saw the dead body of one Sirisha and he observed injuries on head, nose and forehead and various other parties of the body and also blood oozing from her nose. Police conducted inquest panchanama in his presence and read over and explained the contents of it in Telugu to him, thereafter he put his signature on it. Ex.P5 is the inquest panchanama of deceased No.3 Sirisha.
In his crossexamination PW7 deposed that at the time of preparing Ex.P5 inquest he was present. He do not know in columns of Ex.P5 the police written the contents. He do not know what is written in column No.9 and 15 of Ex.P5. He denied that he do not know about the contents of Ex.P5 because he put his signature on printed proforma. He denied that the deceased families are relatives to him so that he is deposing false to help the deceased family to claim compensation.
17.PW8 deposed that he know PW6/Odeti Thirupathi Reddy. In the year 2010 at night time the police, traffic called to Area Hosptial, Godavarikhani, there the police traffic, Ramagundam showed the deceased dead bodies of Ch.Ramesh (D1) and Pittala 9 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Vinay (D2) to him and he identified the same. On the request of police he observed the injuries on the bodies of deceased No.1 and 2 on head and stomach of deceased No.1 and 2. The police conducted panchanama in his presence. The said persons died due to the road accident. Police prepared panchanama of deceased No.1 and 2 in his presence and read over and explained to him then he put his signature on Ex.P5 and
Ex.P6.
In his crossexamination PW8 deposed that he was called by police at night time and he was there at the time of inquest for about 4 hours. The inquest was recorded on plain white papers but not on printed forms. He cannot say how many pages were used for recording inquest. He denied that he is stock witness to the police and that he is deposing at the instance of police.
18.PW9 deposed that in the year 2010 at night time the traffic police called him to
Area Hospital, Godavarikhani, there the police traffic, Ramagundam showed the deceased dead bodies of P.Sheerisha (D3) and he identified the same. On the request of police he observed the injuries on the body of deceased No.3 on head and face of deceased No.3. The police conducted panchanama in his presence. The said persons died due to the road accident. Police prepared panchanama of deceased No.3 in his presence and read over and explained to him then he put his signature on Ex.P7.
In his crossexamination PW9 deposed that at the time of preparing Ex.P7 inquest he was present. He do not know in which column of Ex.P7 the police written what contents. He do not know that what is written in column No.9 and 15 of Ex.P7.
He denied that he do not know about the contents of Ex.P7 because he put his signature on printed proforma. He denied that the deceased are relatives to him so that he is deposing false to help the decease's family to claim compensation.
19.PW10 deposed that on 28012010 he received a requisition from SHO, Police
Station, Traffic Ramagundam for conducting autopsy over three dead bodies by name, deceased No.1 Chinthala Ramesh, deceased No.2 Pittala Vinay and deceased No.3 10 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Pittala Sirisha and accordingly, he conducted Postmortem examination over the said dead bodies of D1 to D3 and he found the following injuries.
External injures over the dead body of D1
1)Lacerated injury on right franto parietal region of the skull
2)Abrasions on right elbow right hand right cheek.
All the injures are ante mortem in nature.
Internal injuries over the dead body of D1
Linear fracture on pantro parietal bones of skull at right side and the injury is ante mortem in nature.
External injuries over the dead body of D2
1)Lacerated injury on left part of the chest and abdomen.
2)Lacerated injury on right thigh.
All the above injuries are ante mortem in nature.
Internal injuries over the dead body of D2
1)Heart and left lung, small intestine came outside.
2)Left side of the chest 4, 5, 6 and 7 ribs are fractured anterior aspect.
3)Fracture on right femur shaft tibia fibula of both lower limbs are fractured.
All the above injuries are ante mortem in nature.
External injuries over the dead body of D3
1)Abrasion in the front of the neck.
2)Lacerated injury on left pirate temporal bone region of the skull.
All the above injures are ante mortem in nature.
Internal injuries over the dead body of D3
Depressed perito temporal bone fracture of skull and the injury is ante mortem in nature.
Cause of death of D1: Shock and hemorrhage secondary to crush injury involved in skull and cerebral matter secondary to road traffic accident (RTA). Ex.P8 is the PME report of D1.
11 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Cause of death of D2: Due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to crush injury involved in multiple vital organs secondary to road traffic accident (RTA). Ex.P9 is the
PME report of D2.
Cause of death of D3: Due to shock and hemorrhage secondary to crush injury involved in skull and cerebral matter secondary to road traffic accident (RTA). Ex.P10 is the PME report of D3.
He denied that without conducting postmortem examination over the dead bodies of deceased No.1 to 3. He issued Ex.P8 to P10 on the request of the police concerned.
20.PW11 deposed that previously he worked as MVI, Ramagundam from June, 2008 to February, 2011. on 04022010 he received a requisition from Traffic police,
Ramagundam for inspection of crime vehicle bearing No. AP36D2727 and he went to police station on the same day at 3.00 pm and inspected the crime vehicle and found no damages on the vehicle.
In his opinion the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. Later he issued Ex.P11 MVI report.
The counsel for the accused was absent, and accused did not ask anything.
Hence the crossexamination of this witness is closed.
21.PW12 deposed that On 28012010 the LW19 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased No.3 by name P.Sireesha in the presence of Pws.7, 9 and LW16. On 27012010 at 20.00 hours, PW1 came to the police station and lodged a complaint. Basing on it LW20 registered a case in Crime No.30/2010
U/Sec.304A of IPC and issued First Information Report, which is marked as Ex.P12 and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW.20 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and immediately LW20 rushed to the scene of offense and prepared crime detail form along with rough sketch in the presence of LW10 and
PW5 and he also took photographs through LW9. Later Lw.20 shifted the three dead 12 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) bodies to the Government Area, Hospital, Godavarikhani.
Later LW20 examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 6 at area hospital, Godavarikhani and examined the Lws.8 and 9 at police station. Later he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead bodies of deceased No.1 and 2 in the presence of PW6 and LW8. Later he handed over the dead bodies to the PW10 for conducting autopsy. Later LW20 handed over the CD file to him after taking it, He verified the CD file and found it correct.
On 05022010 at 8.15 am the accused voluntarily surrendered before the
Ramagundam Police station and confessed his guilty. Later he called the owner of the crime vehicle and also eye witnesses to the incident and on enquiry they told that the same person is accused as per their previous statement and the owner of the vehicle reported the, accused is the driver of the vehicle at the time of incident. After completion of arrest formalities. He sent the accused to the Hon'ble Court for Judicial remand.
Later he collected the PME report of deceased No.1 to 3 from PW10 and he also collected the MVI report from LW18. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304A of IPC.
In his crossexamination PW12 admitted that after receiving the CD file from
LW20, he verified the investigation. He admitted that in the charge sheet it is not mentioned that he reinvestigated by examining owner of the crime vehicle as well as the witnesses, who were examined by LW20. He did not record any statements of the witnesses. He admitted that in charge sheet it is not mentioned that the accused is voluntarily surrendered before him at police station. He denied that one of the deceased drove his bike with other two deceased persons and himself fell down at
Mathangi Colony and the unknown vehicle ran over the deceased No.1 to 3, so the deceased died, but to claim compensation, in collusion with the family of the deceased, he filed this false case against the accused. He denied that the accused is no 13 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) way concerned with the case and falsely implicated in this case. He denied that he did not investigate the case properly and only he made table investigation. He have not conducted any test identification Parade to identify the accused to fix of the liability of the accused in this case.
22.Now the point for determination is whether the identification of the accused is right and whether the Accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused or not.
In this case PW1 and 2 are the relatives of the deceased, they deposed that they came to know about the accident and they rushed to the spot and noticed the dead bodies of the deceased persons and the crime vehicle parked near the place of accident. PW3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the accident they narrated how the accident occurred and that they saw the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle.
PW5 to 9 are the punch witnesses to the crime detail form and the inquest of the deceased they deposed that police conducted the panchanamas and they signed on the panchanamas. PW10 is the medical officer, he deposed that he conducted the
Autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased and that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. PW11 is the motor Vehicle Inspector, he inspected the crime vehicle and the vehicle of the victim and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the both the vehicles and PW12 is the investigating officer, he deposed as per the record.
23.There is no dispute with the deaths of the three deceased persons and there is no dispute with regard to the place of accident. The only dispute is with the identification of the accused and that whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused in this case.
24.In this case the two eye witnesses/PW3 and 4 who are the direct eye witnesses to this accident have categorically deposed that at the time of accident they were going 14 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) on another bike on the same road and the crime vehicle lorry came at high speed from their backside and the driver of the lorry over taken their bike at high speed and dashed to the bike of the deceased which was going in front of them and ran over the bodies of the deceased resulting the instant deaths of three innocent people.
25.Both the witnesses clearly deposed that accused stopped the lorry at some distance from the place of accident and got down from the lorry and ran away from the spot. They tried to catch him but in vein. However both the witnesses clearly seen the accused while he was getting down from the lorry and running away, accordingly they could identify the accused as the same driver who drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner.
26.There is no previous enmity or rivalry between the accused and the witnesses, there is no necessity to the witnesses to depose false evidence against this accused.
27.Both the witnesses have identified the accused as the driver who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident, and that due to his rash and negligent driving only this accident occurred. However the test identification Parade of the accused is not conducted in this case, as such the defense counsel argued that the prosecution case is vitiated.
28.The defence counsel has relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh which is reported in 2002(2) ALT (Criminal page 272 at page 274 para No.5) to the effect,” The identification of the accused and name of the accused did not find place at the earliest point of time i.e., at the time of giving FIR. It is for the prosecution to show that accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he will be responsible for causing the accident. If driver is known to them, the injured would have identified the accused.
29.On thorough reading of the presented case law it clearly appears that case is for the offense U/s. 338 of IPC only. whereas in that case prosecution has failed to 15 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) establish as to how they came to a conclusion that accused is responsible for the offense and how they identified the accused with out conducting Test Identification
Parade. Hence, in that case there was some suspicion with regard to the identification of driver who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and in that case the accused is not shown as the owner of the vehicle.
30.In that case witnesses failed to mention about the name and address of accused. Hence, arresting the accused was not possible to the police in that case as the accused is not owner of the crime vehicle.
31.Whereas this case is for the offense U/s. 304A of IPC wherein the lives of three
Innocent young people is Taken away due to rash and Negligent driving of the Lorry
Driver/Accused. Moreover all the witnesses have clearly stated that the driver of the
Crime Vehicle Lorry committed the offense and the lorry is kept at the place of accident and the photographs of the Scene of offense are clearly showing the crime vehicle lorry which is parked near the place of accident and the crime vehicle
Registration Number AP 36T 2727 is also Clearly Visible even in the photographs.
32.PW12 clearly deposed that the accused himself came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered before the police on that he called the owner of the crime vehicle and the eye witnesses to the police station and they also stated the same and the owner clearly deposed that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Moreover Police can easily get the address of the owner of the crime vehicle through the crime vehicle registration number. Accordingly the police examined the crime vehicle owner and recorded his statement and he clearly stated that Tandra
Rajender/accused is the Driver of the crime vehicle at the time of Accident and the same Tandra Rajender/accused is identified by the eye witnesses as they Seen him when he stopped the lorry near the place of accident and getting down from the lorry and escaping from the spot, and both the eye witnesses tried to catch the accused but
In vein. PW3 and 4 clearly identified the same Accused person in the open court hall 16 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Hence the prosecution clearly proved the identification of the accused in this case. Hence there is no doubt with regard to the identification of accused in this case as there is a clear identification of the accused by two independent eye witnesses to the accident.
33.The learned APP argued that all the witnesses clearly supported the prosecution case and the evidence of Pw3 and 4 clearly implicit the complicity of the accused to this offense.
34.Hence, the decision cited by the defense counsel does not apply to the exact facts and circumstances of this case.
35.The Learned defence counsel submitted one more Decision reported in 2006 Crl. L.J. 824 (A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.304A – Rash and negligent driving – Proof –
Scene of offence Panchanama – Is not substantive evidence – Mere marking of
Panchanama – Is not sufficient – Contents thereof should be proved before Court –
Order taking contents of Panchanama as corroboration to oral testimony or to draw inference of rash and negligent driving – Improper. Criminal P.C (2 of 1974) S. 172.
(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.304A – Rash and negligent driving – Ghastliness of accident – Courts are not expected to be prejudiced or influenced by such ghastliness – They should appreciate evidence in unbiased manner especially when two vehicles are involved and accident is headoncollision.
36.On perusal of the above Judgment it appears that in that case both the vehicles dashed to each other in Opposite direction and both are four wheelers. In a Head on collusion accident there is every chance to both the vehicle drivers to control their vehicles by applying sudden brakes to their vehicles in order to avoid collusion with the opposite vehicle. Hence the rash and negligent driving cannot be thrown on part of any one driver and hence in such a case the circumstantial evidenced also plays a 17 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) vital role and the crime detail form and scene of offense punch witness can elaborately discuss the manner in which the accident occurred and the prosecution has to prove the case facts even with the evidence of circumstantial witnesses.
37.Whereas in this case the crime vehicle dashed the vehicle of the victim from backside. Hence in this case the Driver of the crime vehicle can see the Vehicle of the victim which is going ahead of his vehicle, hence there is every chance to the crime vehicle driver in the behind to see the vehicle going ahead and control his vehicle in order to avoid any collusion. whereas the crime vehicle in this case has dashed the bike of the victim due to which the bike of the victim fell on the road and the three deceased persons fell on the road and the crime vehicle ran over their bodies resulting the instant deaths of three innocent victims. It clearly shows that the crime vehicle is at high speed as such even after dashing the vehicle of the victim the crime vehicle was not controlled by the driver and he ran over the bodies of the victims by crushing them underneath the lorry.
38.On perusal of the photographs of the scene of offense. The place of accident is a small road when compared with the highways and the heavy vehicle drivers have to drive their vehicles with utmost care and caution, whereas in this case it clearly appears that the Accused being the driver of the crime vehicle lorry, drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bike of the victim and ran over the bodies of the deceased, due to which the skull and other parts of the bodies are out busted. It appears that The Crime vehicle lorry is at high speed as such accused being the driver of the crime vehicle could not control his speed as a result he committing this accident. The fact about the rash and negligent driving of the accused is also clearly established by the prosecution with the help of evidence of all the witnesses and with the help of photographs of the scene of offense.
39.On perusal of facts of both cases that case is entirely different when compared with the facts and circumstances of this case.
18 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
40.As all the witnesses have clearly and categorically stated about the incident, and PW3 and 4 identified the accused to be the driver of crime Vehicle Lorry, I feel non conducting of Test Identification Parade is not fatal to this case as whenever any accident occurs to the victims in that accident, or the direct eye witnesses, if they see the accused/driver of the crime vehicle, due to whom the accident occurred, they will never forget that face, even after several years. Hence, witnesses identifying the accused, first time, in the court cannot be thrown out owing to the absence of Test
Identification Parade.
41.In this case both the independent witnesses/ P.W.3 and 4 has clearly mentioned that, at the time of accident they were coming on another bike from the same road and that the said crime vehicle over taken them at high speed and the crime vehicle driver dashed to the bike of the victims resulting the death of three innocent persons. So the witnesses have clearly seen the face of the accused closely and clearly and they deposed that accused is the same person who drove the Crime
Vehicle lorry at the time of accident and their evidence is undoubtedly believable and nonmentioning of the descriptive particulars of the accused is not fatal to this case.
42.Hence, the facts in the cited cases are entirely different when compared with the facts of this case. Hence, I feel the above citations are not as exactly as applicable to this case. It is clearly established by all the witnesses that accused is the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident and all the witnesses are not having any prior disputes with the accused and they have no necessary to depose false against the accused. Hence, their evidence is quite believable.
43.Moreover the Motor Vehicle Inspector report /Ex.P11, it was clearly mentioned that the accident occurred was not due to any Mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and the vehicle of the victims. Hence, in this case there is no hardship to the police to implicate the accused to this offense. Hence the evidence of prosecution is clearly believable.
19 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
44.All the witnesses are not having any prior disputes with the accused and they have no necessity to depose false against the accused. Hence, their evidence is clearly believable as the injuries mentioned by the witness are also clearly corroborated by the evidence of the Government doctor/PW10.
45.In view of the above discussion and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the prosecution has clearly proved the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts for the offense punishable u/s. 304A of IPC.
46.In the circumstances of the case I am not inclined to apply the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act or provision of Sec.325 or 360 of Cr.P.C. in view of the rash and negligent act of the accused which lead to the death of two innocent minors and a young man which cannot be compensated to their families in any manner.
47.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offense punishable U/Sec.304A of IPC. Accordingly he is convicted U/Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offense.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of November, 2016.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani
HEARING ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE:
When questioned with regard to quantum of sentence, accused stated that he is the sole bread earner of his family and that he have to look after his old aged parents and three daughters and if he is sent to imprisonment then his family may suffer irreparable loss, therefore requested to show mercy and to take lenient view in awarding punishment. Considering his request and his family conditions a lenient view is taken in awarding the sentence.
In the result accused is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offense punishable U/Sec.304A IPC. The accused is informed that he has got right to prefer an appeal and he has the facility of Free legal aid in 20 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010) defending him in the appellate court if he satisfies the required conditions.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18th day of November, 2016.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 – Ch.Srinivas PW2 – P.Bikshapathi PW3 – Sandanaveni Kumar PW4 – Jilla Saikishore PW5 Pathupalli Ramesh PW6 Kodeti Thirupathi Reddy PW7 Damasani Raji Reddy PW8 Abboju Kiran Kumar PW9 Gunti Sampath PW10 M.Satyanarayana Reddy PW11 Karunakar Reddy PW12 A.Vidyasagar
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 – Complaint of PW1 Ex.P2 – Crime Detail Form Ex.P3 – Signature of witness on inquest of deceased No.1 Ex.P4 – Signature of witness on inquest of deceased No.2 Ex.P5 Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.3 Ex.P6 Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.2 Ex.P7 Inquest Panchanama of Deceased No.1 Ex.P8 PME Report of deceased No.1 Ex.P9 PME Report of deceased No.2 Ex.P10 PME Report of deceased No.3 Ex.P11 Motor Vehicle Inspector Report Ex.P12 – First Information Report
FOR THE DEFENCE
Ex.D1 Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.D2 Portion marked in 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
Nil 21 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani 22 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
HEARING OF ACCUSED U/SEC.248(2) ON QUANTUM OF SENTENCE
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. :: AT
GODAVARIKHANI
C.C. No.123 of 2015 (NEW)
C.C. No.86 of 2010 (OLD)
Name:Thandra RajenderS/o:Pochaiah
Age:(34) YearsOcc:
R/o.:Neerukulla Village, Date:18.11.2016 Sulthanabad Mandal.
Q.No.1: In this case prosecution proved your guilt for this offence U/Sec.304A IPC and your liable to be convicted. Would you like to submit anything with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against you.
Ans:
23 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT :
GODAVARIKHANI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIVING OF CONVICTION JUDGEMENT COPY
FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2016
Name of the Sl.Date ofSignature of the Case Numberaccused No.Judgmentaccused with date persons
CC No.123 of 2015 (New)18.11.2016Thandra
1
CC No.86 of 2010 (Old)Rajender
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT :
GODAVARIKHANI
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIVING OF CONVICTION JUDGEMENT COPY
FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2016
Name of the Sl.Date ofSignature of the Case Numberaccused No.Judgmentaccused with date persons
CC No.123 of 2015 (New)Thandra
118.11.2016
CC No.86 of 2010 (Old)Rajender
24 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani
WARRANT OF COMMITMENT OF IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI
C.C.NO.123 of 2015 (NEW)
C.C.NO.86 of 2010 (OLD)
Date:18.11.2016
To
The Superintendent, District Jail, Karimnagar.
Whereas on the 18th day of November, 2016, Accused namely, Thandra Rajender,
S/o.Pochaiah, Age: 34 years, Caste: Mala, R/o.Neerukulla village, Sulthanabad Mandal who is accused in C.C. No.123 of 2015 (NEW) and C.C No.86 of 2010 (OLD) on the file of this court is convicted by me Sri P.Pradeep Naik, B.A., LL.M., Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Godavarikhani U/Sec.255 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A IPC and he is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of ONE (1) YEAR for the offence punishable U/Sec.304A IPC.
This is to authorize and require you to receive the said convicts into your custody in the said jail, together with this warrant and thereby carry the aforesaid sentence into execution according to Law. The prisoner is not a fit subject for the special habitual.
DESCRIPTIVE ROLL
Father’s
1.Name:Thandra Rajender2.Pochaiah Name:
3.Sex:Male4.Status:Married
5.Religion:Hindu6.Age:34 Years
Descriptive Neerukulla Village,
7.8.R/o.: MarksSulthanabad Mandal
The distance from the prisoner’s resident to meet the nearest Bus Station/Railway station is 70 Km. The amount of Bus fare/Railway fare is Rs._________/.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the court on this the 18th day of November, 2016.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani 25 C.C No.123 of 2015 (Old C.C No.86 of 2010)
Note:The remand period undergone by the accused : Nil.
Judicial Magistrate of First Class
FAC : II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani