IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM- JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS :: NIDADAVOLE
Present:: Sri P.SRINIVAS, Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class.
NIDADAVOLE
Monday, this the 31st of day of July, 2023
C.C. No. 65 of 2021
Between:
The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu Police Station.
…... Complainant.
-Versus-
Kondaparti Jai Chaitanya, S/o Venkata Krishna Rao, 25 years, Kapu, Chagallu village and Mandal. ……. Accused
This case is coming on 27.07.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri D.K.S.Prakash Kumar and Sri Ch.Vijaya Kumar, Advocates for the accused and upon hearing their arguments and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :- -:: J U D G M E N T ::-
This is a case filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chegallu Police Station, against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the chargesheet are as follows:
On the night of 04.03.2021 at about 11.15 p.m. LW.1/Maddipati Satish along with his friend Talluri Dinesh Kumar were proceeding to take tiffin at DJ Daba on motor cycle and after had tiffin while returning to house, when reached to Jaipur Sugar Factory Guest House on Pangidi- Chagallu road, Chagallu village, LW.1 dropped his friend Talluri Dinesh. Then said Dinesh while crossing the road to go to his house, at about 11.45 p.m. the rider of Enfield
Motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 DA 0006 by name Chaitanya i.e. accused ride his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Chagallu to Pangidi side, dashed his friend, as a result of which, his friend Dinesh felt on the road, then accused did not stopped his motor cycle, ran away and also felt. Then LW.1 shifted his friend Dinesh who sustained injuries, to Government Hospital, Kovvur in 108 ambulance, then LW.1 shifted his friend to 2 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole
Government Hospital, Rajahmundry for better treatment, the staff declared his friend has died.
Basing on the report of LW.1/Maddipati Satish, LW.14/S.A.A.Hussain, ASI of Police,
Chagallu PS registered the case and investigated into. During the course of investigation,
LW.13 visited the scene of offence, got drafted scene observation report, prepared rough sketch and then visited to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, held inquest over the deadbody of deceased and got drafted inquest report and examined the witnesses. Later
LW.8/N.V.V.Satyanarayana produced the accused before the police station. LW.12
Dr.D.Sunil Raju. CAS who conducted Post Mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased finally opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to Hemorrhagic shock due to injury to vital organs, approximate time of death within 24 hours prior to his post mortem examination. LW.13 K.Chaitanya Suma, AMVI who inspected the crime vehicle issued accident report opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle Enfield Motor cycle No.AP 37 DA 0006. LW.15/G.J.Vishnuvardhan, SI of
Police conducted further investigation and served notice to the accused under Sec.41(A)(1)
Cr.P.C. and obtained satisfactory reply from him and released the accused. After completion of investigation LW.15 filed chargesheet against the accused. Hence the charge.
3. The case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-
A of IPC.
4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents are furnished to him U/s.207
Cr.P.C.
5. The accused is examined under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. for the accusation made against the accused for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant, PW.s 1 to 11 were examined they are PW.1/M.Satish, PW.2/T.Satyanarayana, PW.3/T.Harischandra Prasad,
PW.4/K.Naveen, PW.5/T.Akhilesh, PW.6/S.A.A.Hussain, PW.7/K.Vijaya Kumar,
PW.8/Dr.D.Suynil Raju, PW.9/K.Chaitanya Suma, PW.10/N.V.V.Satyanarayana and 3 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole
PW.11/G.J.Vishnuvardhan and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 i.e. Ex.P1/Report given by PW.1,
Ex.P2/FIR, Ex.P3/Inquestnama, Ex.P4/Rough sketch, Ex.P5/Scene observation mahazarnama, Ex.P6/Post Mortem report, Ex.P7/M.V.I.Report; Ex.P8/161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10. On behalf of defence no oral evidence is addused, but Ex.D1 and D2 ie. Relevant portions in 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW.s 4 and 5, are marked.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Sec.313
Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
8. Heard both the sides.
9. Now, the points for determination are :
1) Whether there was an accident on 04.03.2021 at 11.15 pm., opposite Factory Guest House, Chagallu, involving the crime vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-37DA-0006 Royal Enfield resulting the death of deceased?
2) Whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle Royal Enfiled bearing Reg.No.AP-37DA-0006 at the time of accident?
3) Whether the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused as the driver of crime vehicle Royal Enfield bearing No.AP-37 DA-0006?
4) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the offence U/s.304A of IPC charged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?
The point NO.1 to 4 are clubbed and discussed together for the sake and convenience.
10. It is the evidence of PW.1, who is complainant in this case and he is direct witness and he deposed his evidence by reiterating the contents of Ex.P1 report. During his cross examination he admitted that nobody instructed him to prepare said report in such a way and he has not mentioned the time 11.45 p.m. but he does not know who put said time i.e.
11.45 p.m. in Ex.P1 report. He further admitted that he went to police station at 10.00 a.m. on 5.3.2021 and met station writer but he cannot say his name and by the time A.S.I. Rabbani was present at Chagallu PS and his report was taken by writer but not ASI and by the time he reached the police station by 10.00 a.m. ASI Rabbani and writer were present in the police station and after presenting Ex.P1 report to police, he never visited again to the police station, 4 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole
Chagallu. He further admitted that he has not shown the scene of offence to the police on the same day of the report. He further admitted that if any person while crossing the road, it is his bounden duty to see any vehicles are coming on either side of the road and there is no
Zebra crossing marks at Chagallu Road and the road from Pangidi to Chagallu is busy road and at Chagallu guest house the road is a curve road. The deceased is software and he is also software employee and police never recorded his statement after presenting Ex.P1 report to police. So many suggestions are given to him and the same are denied by the witness.
11. As can be seen from the contents of Ex.P1, which was given by PW.1 on 05.03.2021 at 10.00 a.m. without mentioning the time of offence in it. But the time of accident is noted in
Ex.P1, but PW.1 admitted that he has not mentioned the time 11.45 p.m. inEx.P1 and he does not know the same. So, question of mentioning time in the report given by PW.1 is not explained by the prosecution. Moreover PW.1 himself admitted that, his report was taken by writer by not ASI and by the time he went to police station the Writer and ASI Rabbani were present. So, he never deposed in his entire evidence that he gave report to one ASI SAA
Hussain. Unless he give said report to said SAA Hussain, ASI and the report given by PW.1 to writer is not placed by the police before this court.
12. In the instant case, PW.1 is direct witness for the alleged accident and he also noticed who is the driver of the crime vehicle Royal Enfield bike bearing NO.AP 37 DA 0006 which was hit the deceased while crossing the road at Chagallu guest house, according to his evidence. If that is being so, why PW.1 failed to identify the accused that he is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of accident at the time of giving his report before the Court.
Further the investigation officer never held any test identification parade through PW.1 for identification of accused. Though PW.1 gave his report by mentioning the name of the driver of the accused in it. So, who informed the name of driver of the crime vehicle to him, in order to mention the same in Ex.P1 is not explained by the prosecution including PW.1. Further
PW.1 never deposed in his entire evidence that, he informed the accident to the parents of deceased and also PW.s 2 to 4. Further PW,.1 himself admitted in his cross examination that police never recorded his statement after presenting Ex.P1. There are so many, doubts from 5 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole the evidence of PW.1, why because he never shown the alleged scene of offence to police that it is an accident place. Further on perusal of inquest it was held by police in the presence of inquestdars on 5.3.2021 at 11.45 a.m. at Government Hospital, Rajahmundry at mortuary by mentioning therein the name of panchayatdars and blood relatives and also direct witnesses.
Once PW.1 was present at Chagallu PS by 10.00 a.m. and presented Ex.P1 to police on said time, question of he was present at the time of inquest held by police over the deadbody of deceased by 11.45 a.m. does not arise and the same is not explained by the prosecution. So, the inconsistent evidence of PW.1 cannot be looked into.
13. It is the evidence of Pw.2, who is none other than the father of deceased who is not direct witness to the accident and he came to know the accident through PW.1, as such he went to Government Hospital, Kovvur where already his son was shifted to Government
Hospital, Rajahmundry. From there he proceeded to government hospital, Rajahmundry and found the deadbody of his son in the hospital and he was informed byPW.1 the crime vehicle motor cycle, hit his son. During his cross examination he admitted that he did not state before police what he deposed in his chief examination today and they filed MVOP for getting compensation and his son deceased followed with PW.1 on his bike.
14. From the evidence of PW.2, it is silent whether he received phone call from PW.1 or
PW.1 himself came to his house informed about the accident to him in person. Further PW.2 never deposed anything about the rash and negligent driving of the accused and also not identified the accused is the route cause of the above accident, as such his son was died in said accident. Therefore, the testimony of PW.2 also cannot be relied on.
15. It is the evidence of PW.3 who is none other than younger brother of PW.2, he also deposed the same version as deposed by PW.2 in his evidence before the court. During his cross examination he also stated before the police that he did not state before police what he deposed in his chief examination today and deceased followed with PW.1 on his bike.
16. Admittedly and evidently, it is a fact that PW.1 and deceased together proceeded in the bike of PW.1 and both PW.s 2 and 3 never deposed in their entire evidence that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, which is a crucial 6 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole point to determine the case of prosecution. Further he is a relative and interested to PW.2.
Hence his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.
17. It is the evidence of PW.4 who is friend of deceased and he also deposed his evidence before the court that he received phone call from PW.1 about the accident where
Dinesh involved in the road accident at Factory Guest House at Chagallu, accordingly he went to both Government Hospital, Kovvur and Rajahmundry and while the injured was undergoing treatment he was succumbed to injuries. Except that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. During his cross examination he admitted that, while his statement was recorded by police he stated before police in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that he was present at his house at 11.15 p.m. while he received information from PW.1 and he further admitted that he did not state before the police as in Ex.D1 i.e. red portion of his 161 Cr.P.C.
statement.
18. From his evidence, he is not a direct witness for the alleged accident and he came to know the accident through PW.1. Contrary to it, PW.1 never deposed in his entire evidence that he informed the accident to PW.4 neither orally nor over phone. Further PW.4 also never deposed anything against the accused and his involvement in this case. Therefore, his evidence also cannot be taken into consideration.
19. It is the evidence of PW.5 who is friend of deceased that he received phone call from PW.1 about the accident where Dinesh involved in the road accident at Factory Guest
House at Chagallu, immediately he rushed to the scene of offence and found the deceased with injuries and rider of the bike also fell down in other side and PW.1 called 108 ambulance and PW.1 shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Kovvur from there to Government
Hospital, Rajahmundry and doctors declared that the injured was died. During his cross examination he admitted that, when his statement was recorded by police, he stated before the police that he was present at his house at about 11.15 p.m. while he was received information from PW.1. He further admitted that he did not state before police as in Ex.P2 red portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement.
20. From his evidence, he is not a direct witness for the alleged accident and he came to 7 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole know the accident through PW.1. Contrary to it, PW.1 never deposed in his entire evidence that he informed the accident to PW.5 neither orally nor over phone. Further PW.5 also never deposed anything against the accused and his involvement in this case. If really he rushed to the scene of offence, after receipt of phone call from PW.1 and found the deceased with injuries and also rider of the bike at the scene, nothing is prevented to him to identify the rider of the bike at the time of giving his evidence before the court and police also never try to conduct any text identification parade through him.. Therefore, his evidence also cannot be taken into consideration.
21. It is the evidence of PW.6 who is first investigation officer, he deposed his evidence that PW.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 at 10-00 a.m. On 5.3.2021 and basin on it he registered the case and issued Ex.P2 FIR. Immediately he proceeded t scene of offence and from there he visited government Rajahmundry where he secured the presence of PW.s 1 to 5,
LW.4/T.Rama Krishna Parama Hamsa, LW.5/T.Surya Bhavan, examined them and recorded their statements and he secured PW.7, LW.9 B.Veera Venkata Tata Rao, LW.11 K.Jaya Ram and in their presence he held inquest over the deadbody of deceased Talluri Dinesh Kumar at
Mortuary road at Government hospital and prepared Ex.P3 Inquest report. Then he forwarded the deadbody for post mortem examination, therefrom he visited scene of offence and prepared Ex.P4 rough sketch and he observed the scene and prepared Ex.P5 scene observation mahazarnama in the presence of PW.7 and LW.10 BVV Tata Rao later he handed over the CD file to PW.11.
During his cross examination, he stated that PW.s 4 and 5 stated before him as per the contents of Ex.D1 and D2 red portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statements respectively. He further stated that, PW.1 directly came to police station and presented Ex.P1 report to him and he registered the case. He further admitted that the time 11.45 a.m. ‘Ku” as added in Ex.P1 but no initial put at that place. He further admitted that he did not find any incriminating material at the scene of offence as per the scene observation mahazarnama and as per the contents of Ex.P1 the motor cycle belongs to PW.1 who dropped the deceased in his motor cycle. A specific suggestion is given to him that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of PW.1 in his 8 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole motor cycle but the accused never hit the deceased with his motor cycle and in order to save the skin of PW.1 and to get compensation to the deceased family and also put other suggestions and the same are denied by the witness.
22. According to the evidence of PW.1 he gave report to one writer and by the time one
ASI Rabbani was present. If really PW.1 gave his report to said writer, how PW.6 registered the case on such report given by PW.1 is contradicting to each other. Further if really PW.6 proceeded to the scene of offence, after presenting Ex.P1 by PW.1, he ought to have deposed that he noticed crime vehicle and the accused was present at the scene of offence. Contrary to it, the evidence of PW.6 is silent about the noticing of crime vehicle at the scene of offence, including presence of accused at the alleged scene of offence. Further, it is silent from his evidence, who shown the scene of offence to PW.6 to identify that it is the scene of offence and on perusal of the rough sketch, he noted the scene of offence and he also prepared Ex.P5 scene observation report but he never make mentioned the crime vehicle number at the scene of offence and also it is silent who shifted the crime vehicle from the scene of offence. All points are silent from the evidence of PW.6 who failed to investigate the case on correct lines to secure evidence to connect the case with accused. But he is the rider of the crime vehicle motor cycle. Once the time is added in Ex.P1 but no initial put that place and said time is not mentioned by PW.1 in Ex.P1 as admitted by PW.1. So question of note down the time in Ex.P1 is not explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the inconsistent evidence of PW.6 also cannot be taken into consideration.
23. It is the evidence of PW.7, who is VRO who was present at the time of observation of the scene and also he is an inquestdar who deposed the same facts in his evidence. During his cross examination he admitted that, the writing of Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 are not one and the same and Ex.P5 does not contain the name of scribe. Ex.P5 does not containing specifically in the body of Ex.P5 that he also accompanied PW.6 to the scene of offence. Some suggestions are given to him and the same are denied by the witness.
24. As can be seen from his evidence, he never deposed about the noticing of crime vehicle at the scene of offence, at the time of observing the scene of offence and also not 9 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole deposed anything against the accused in this case.
25. It is the evidence of PW.8 who conducted post mortem examination over the deadbody of deceased and issued Ex.P6/Post Mortem report, but he never deposed anything about the involvement of the driver of the crime vehicle due to his rash and negligent driving and hit his vehicle against the deceased, as such the deceased died. All points are silent from his evidence.
26. It is the evidence of PW.9 who is M.V. Inspector she deposed that, after receipt of requisition from SHO, Chagallu she inspected the crime vehicle at Chagallu PS and found no damages to the vehicle and she issued Ex.P7 MVI report. During her cross examination, she admitted that she has not examined the place of alleged accident and the details including the name of accused and the time and vehicle were furnished by police to her.
27. As can be seen from her evidence, she inspected the crime vehicle at police station.
Unless, the vehicle was seized by neither PW.6 not PW.11 from the owner of the vehicle, how the crime vehicle was in the police station, Chagallu, is not explained by the prosecution and the same is silent from the prosecution witnesses. So, question of PW.9 inspected the crime vehicle at police station cannot be acceptable and believable.
28. It is the evidence of PW.10 who is the owner of the crime vehicle motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 DA 0006 Royal Enfield according to the case of prosecution. But on evidence before the court, he stated that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and police never examined him and never recorded his statement. As such he was declared by learned APP as hostile and during his cross examination, his earlier 161 statement marked as Ex.P2 after confronted the same through him and the same is denied by the witness.
Further, he never deposed that he has given his motor cycle to deceased and the same was involved in the road accident and after knowing the same, he handed over the same to police.
All questions are silent from his evidence. Unless he handed over the said crime vehicle to police, how the police seized the same for inspection for MVI. All questions are silent from his evidence. Hence, the PW.10 who is crucial witness to the entire prosecution, who did not support the case of prosecution as such his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
10 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole
29. It is the evidence of PW.11 who is second investigation officer deposed that he received CD file from PW.6 and he examined and recorded the statement of PW.10 on 10.3.2021, later he served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to accused and after receipt of MVO and PM certificate he laid chargsheet. He further stated that PW.10 stated before him as in Ex.P8.
Some suggestions are given to him and the same are denied by the witness.
30. PW.11 being an investigation officer he supposed to speak the real facts of the case to know whether PW.10 produced the accused before him with motor cycle of PW.1 since the case of prosecution is that. Contrary to it, the evidence of PW.11 is silent to that effect. Further he never held any test identification parade through any witnesses including PW.1 to know whether the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of alleged offence or not.
Unless he conduct the same, mere filing of chargesheet against the accused for the charge leveled against the accused under Sec.304-A does not arise and no witnesses stated anything against the accused and his involvement in this case. Therefore, the testimony of PW.11 also cannot be taken into consideration.
31. In view of the facts and circumstances, in view of the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on behalf of the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable U/Sec.s 304A of IPC. Hence, Points 1 to 4 are answered accordingly.
Point No.5:
32. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A of
IPC. Hence, the accused is acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable
U/Sec.304-A of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time of six months.
Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of July, 2023.
Sd/- Sri P.Srinivas,
ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE –cum-
ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,
NIDADAVOLE
11 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE :
PW.1 :: M.Satish, PW.2 :: T.Satyanarayana, PW.3 :: T.Harischandra Prasad, PW.4 :: K.Naveen, PW.5 :: T.Akhilesh, PW.6 :: S.A.A.Hussain, N O N E PW.7 :: K.Vijaya Kumar, PW.8 :: Dr.D.Suynil Raju, PW.9 :: K.Chaitanya Suma, PW.10 :: N.V.V.Satyanarayana, PW.11 :: G.J.Vishnuvardhan.
EXHIBITS MARKED
Prosecution:
Ex.P1 :: Report given by PW.1, Ex.P2 :: FIR, Ex.P3 :: Inquestnama, Ex.P4 :: Rough sketch, Ex.P5 :: Scene observation mahazarnama, Ex.P6 :: Post Mortem report, Ex.P7 :: M.V.I.Report, Ex.P8 :: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10.
FOR DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 :: Relevant portions in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Ex.D2 :: Relevant portions in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.
Material Objects:
-Nil-
Id/- Sri P.S., A.J.C.J.-cum- A.J.F.C.M., NDD.
12 C.C.No.65/2021 Dt.31.07.2023 AJCJ cum AJFCM Court, Nidadavole
Form No. 72
Calendar and Judgment
District of West Godavari
Calendar of cases tried by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-
Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nidadavole
Judgment in Calendar Case No.65/2021
Nature of Offence: Under Section 304-A IPC
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2023
Date of Date ofDate of Date of Date of Date of Date of offenceReport of apprehension Release on commencement closure of sentence Complainantof accusedbailof trialtrialor order 04.03.202105.03.202110.03.202110.03.202113.04.202327.07.202331.07.2023
Explanation for the delay: --
Judgment in Calendar case No.65/2021 in Cr.No.63/2021 on the file of Additional Judicial
Magistrate of I Class Court, Nidadavole.
Complainant: The State, rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chagallu PS
Name of accused Father’s Age ReligionCalling Residence Mandal. name Kondaparti Jai Chaitanya, S/o Venkata Krishna Rao, 25 years, Kapu, Chagallu village and Mandal.
Pleaded : Not Guilty
Finding : Found not guilty.
Sentence: IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sec.304-A of IPC. Hence, the accused is acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stands cancelled, after expiry of appeal time of six months.
Sd/- Sri P.Srinivas,
Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-
Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate,
Nidadavole Copy submitted to:
The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Eluru.