Smt S.Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki

Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka) · Prakasham · Andhra Pradesh

Smt S.Priyadarshini Nuthakki, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, is posted at Senior Civil Judge, Addanki (Taluka), Prakasham, Andhra Pradesh, India. 11,908 court orders on record since 2022. 35 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

11,908

Total Orders

Judgments

366

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/511/2022 Acquitted

A.P. State J. Pangulur police station vs Jampani Haribabu

16 Apr 2025

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, ADDANKI.

Present: Smt S Priyadarshini Nuthakki,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Addanki. Thursday, this the 16 th day of April, 2025

C.C.No. 511 of 2022

(Cr.No.18/2022 of J.Pangulur P.S)

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Martur police station ... Complainant

And

Jampani Haribabu, S/o.Srinivasulu, Aged 50 years, R/o.Kondamanjuluru village, J.Panguluru Mandal. (Driver of Tractor/trailer bearing No.AP 27 TT 9151/9152) … Accused Deceased: Gorremuchu Hanumantha Rao, S/o.Neelambaram, aged 50 years

This case is presented before me on 15.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri K.Ramakrishna Rao, Advocate for the accused, and upon perusal of material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of Cr.No.18/2022, for the offence u/s.304-A and 337 of I.P.C., registered by J.Pangulur Police station, based on the report given by PW.1(Gorremuchu Chiranjeevi) son of the deceased with the following allegations.

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case reads thus:-

The deceased Gorremuchu Hanumantha Rao was a resident of

Nakkalapalem village in Inkollu Mandal, making a living through coolie

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.2 work. The injured Lws 6 and 7 Gorremuchu Abraham and Gorremuchu

Kotaiah are also from Nakkalapalem village, and like Hanumantha Rao, they work as migrant laborers in the tobacco go-downs of

Guravareddypalem for daily wages. They had been commuting to work for the past ten days. LW.9 is the owner of the auto in which they travelled was bearing registration number AP.27.TU.7535. This auto is regularly used by the deceased and the injured to travel to Guravareddypalem for their coolie work and return home afterwards.

On the morning of 26.02.2022, at around 5:30 AM, the deceased and the injured, along with spouse of the deceased and other individuals, boarded LW.9's auto to head to Guravareddypalem for work. While they were travelling, at approximately 5:45 AM, when the auto approached

Budavada village centre, at that moment, the accused, being the driver of a tractor and trailer with registration number AP.27.TT.9151/9152 loaded with cement pipes, drove rashly and negligently, colliding with the auto.

The collision was severe, with the tractor striking the deceased, who was sitting next to the driver, and cement pipes falling on him. As a result, he sustained fatal injuries to his right shoulder, and his body was severely compressed by the falling pipes, leading to his instant death at the scene.

Both injured individuals, Abraham and Kotaiah, also sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, LW.9 contacted LW.1, the deceased's son, to inform him about the incident.

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.3

Without delay, LW.1 and other close relatives of the deceased rushed to the scene and noticed the deceased’s body along with the injured individuals, LW.6 and LW.7. An ambulance from services 108 arrived shortly after and transported the injured to Ongole for medical treatment.

Following the incident, the driver of the tractor and trailer, bearing the number AP.27.TT.9151/9152, did not provide medical aid to the injured, and without informing the accident to police, had fled away from the scene of accident.

Subsequently, PW.1 visited the police station and filed a written report to initiate the necessary action regarding the incident.

3.On the strength of the report given by PW1, PW.6(K.Ravi) Asst.

Sub-Inspector of Police, registered crime, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the scene and scene of offence observation report. He took photographs of the scene, examined and recorded the statements of PW1, PW2, Lws 3 to 5, shifted the dead body to Community

Health Centre, Addanki and crime vehicle to the police station. PW.6 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased, and subjected the dead body for postmortem examination, and crime vehicle for inspection.

After that LW.18(U.Punna Rao) took up further investigation in this case.

He examined and recorded the statements of Lws 6 to 10. He issued notice U/sec.41-A of Cr.P.C., to the accused. He received Postmortem

Examination report, MVI report, and wound certificates of PW2 and PW3.

Based on the opinion given by the doctor in the wound certificate of PW.3,

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.4 he added section 338 of I.P.C. and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4.The court took cognizance of the offence u/s.337, 338 and 304-A of

I.P.C., and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act against the accused.

5.Accused is put in appearance before the court, copies of all documents, as contemplated u/s.207 Cr.P.C. are furnished to him.

6.Accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., explaining the accusation leveled against him for the offences under sections 337, 338 , 304-A of I.P.C. and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act, in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.The prosecution in order to prove the complicity of the accused examined PW1 to PW6 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 are marked.

8.Accused is examined u/s.313(1)(a) of Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence.

9.I have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.

10.Now the question that arises for the consideration is :-

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of

the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the

offence under section 304-A IPC”?

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.5

11. Point:-

This is a case of road traffic accident that allegedly occurred on 26-02-2022 wherein, father of PW1 namely G.Hanumantha

Rao(deceased herein) died on the spot whereas PW3(G.Abraham) and

PW.2(G.Kotaiah) sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, at Budavada village centre. It appears that, based on the report given by PW1, under Ex.P1 before PW6, the FIR covered by Ex.P8 was booked and investigated by the investigating officers. When the accused was put to a questionnaire, explaining the accusation made against him that, on account of his rash and negligent driving of a crime vehicle, one person died, and two became injured, he denied the same, and claimed for trial.

12. Before proceeding with the evidence let in by the prosecution, it is apposite to refer to section 304-A of the IPC, which reads thus:-

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.

13.To prove the case of prosecution that, accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the accused, the prosecution has made the evidence of PW1 to PW5 available on record, apart from the evidence of PW6, one of the investigating officers. No doubt, PW1 at whose instance, basing on his report given before police

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.6 under Ex.P1, FIR under Ex.P8 has been registered, however, what matters is that, he is not an eye witnesses to the incident, and only on the information he received, through phone, he came to know about the incident. His evidence can be taken into consideration to the extent that his deceased father, while proceeding to Guravareddypalem village, in an auto, met with an accident, due to the dash given by the crime vehicle.

There is no dispute about the cause of death of deceased. What needs to be proved by the prosecution is that, death of deceased is the direct result of rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the accused, and such positive material is missing in the evidence of PW1, and even the same cannot be accepted from him, as he is not an eye witness to the incident.

15.The prosecution has examined PW2, who is none other than the wife of the deceased, who boarded the auto along with the deceased on the date of the incident, claiming her as an eyewitness to the incident.

However what she deposed is that, about one year ago, one day she along with herhusband in the Wee hours boarded an auto to go to village fields to attend wage work while they were travelling along with other co- workers, theirauto reached Budawada Village and by the time a tractor driver by its driver hit theirauto as a result, the auto turned aside and in the said incident her husband sustained injuries over his chest, head and knees and died on the spot and whereas sheescaped unhurt. She further deposed that the other two passengers of the auto also sustained injuries.

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.7

What she stated in her evidence is that shedoes not know who drove the auto at that time, and also shedoes not know who was the driver of the crime vehicle tractor, and shedoes not know whose negligence this incident occurred. After the incident at herrequest of the co-passengers made a phone call to P.W.1 and informed them about the incident as such

P.W.1 came to the spot and thereafter theushifted the dead body of her husband to the police station where P.W.1 preferred a complaint and later on the body was shifted to Government Hospital and shewas not examined by the police. PW.2, being an eyewitness and wife of the deceased, stated that shedoes not know who was the driver of the crime vehicle tractor, and shedoes not know whose negligence caused this incident occurred. There is no incriminating material found in her evidence against the accused.Therefore, her evidence is of no avail in the case of prosecution.

16. PW3, injured as well as eye witness to the accident, and what he stated is that, about one year ago, on one day healong with the deceased, wife of the deceased i.e., P.W.2 and others of hisvillage, in the

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.8 injury over his forehead and blood oozed from his nose. He further stated that the other two passengers of the auto alsosustained injuries. He deposed that hedoes not know who drove the auto at that time, and also hedoes not know who was the driver of the crime vehicle tractor, and that hedoes not know whose negligence caused this incident.

17. PW4, anotherinjured as well as eye witness to the accident deposed in his evidence that, about one year ago, on one day healong with the deceased, wife of the deceased i.e., P.W.2 and others of hisvillage, in the

Wee hours boarded in an auto to go to village fields to attend wage work and while they were travelling along with other co-workers, when the auto reached to Budawada village and by the time a tractor driver by its driver hit the auto as a result, the auto turned aside and in the said incident, the deceased sustained injuries over his chest, head and knees and died on the spot and whereas P.W.1 escaped unhurt and whereas he sustained injury over his forehead. He further stated that the other two passengers of the auto also sustained injuries. He deposed that he did not know who drove the auto at that time, and also he did not know who was the driver of the crime vehicle tractor and that he did not know whose negligence this incident happened.

There is no material found in the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 against the accused. PW3 and PW4 have turned down the prosecution's case, as they re-sailed on the contents of Ex.P4 and P5, and therefore, the same cannot be looked into for appreciating the prosecution's case.

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.9

18.PW5 is one of the mediatorsfor the inquest panchanama and scene observation report. In his evidence, he has stated that, about one year ago,he, along with LW11(R.Venu Babu), went to Budawada village, and in their presence scene observation report was prepared wherein he affixed his thumb impression under Ex.P6scene observation report. He further stated that, on the same day at about he along with LW11and

LW13(Perikala. Samuel)went to Community Health Centre,Addankiwhere police have conducted inquest panchanama on the dead body of deceased

Hanumantha Rao, and prepared inquest panchanama under Ex.P7, wherein he affixed his thumb impression.Though this witness supported the investigation carried out by PW.6 so far as the observation of the scene of offence under ExP6 and conducting inquest under Ex.P7 in his chief examination, when coming to his cross examination, this witness stated that he do not know the contents in EX.P6 and P7 and he do not know the for what reason his thumb impression was obtained by the police. He further admitted that he affixed his thumb impression in Ex.P6 and P7 at the police station. Hence, the investigation carried out by PW.6 so far as Ex.P6 and P7 become doubtful.

19. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the deceased and injured family have come to an understanding with the accused outside the Court, and arrived for an amicable settlement, and perhaps for that reason, the witnesses cited and examined have not been supported in the prosecution case.

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.10

20. Though, one of the investigating officersPW6has demonstrated the manner how he investigated the case from the stage of registration of

Ex.P8FIR, conduction of inquest panchanama, recording statements of some of the witnesses, subjecting the crime vehicle for inspection, anotherInvestigating Officer(L.W.18.U.PunnaRao) who claimed to have conducted a part ofinvestigation did not enter the witness box. Whether or not the non-examination of an investigating officerto prove the prosecution’s case has caused prejudice to the defence is essentially a question of fact, and an inference is required to be drawn having regard to the facts and circumstances obtained in each case. The reason why the

Investigating Officer(LW.18)could not depose as a witness is that his evidence was closed on 11.04.2025as the SHO, J.PangulurP.S., failed to serve the summons since the date of issuance, i.e. from 1.11.2023.

Despite of granting time nearly more than one year and five months,he failed to serve the summons. Therefore, as this court has no alternative except closing his evidence closed his evidence on 11.04.2025.

In the facts of the present case, though there areconspicuous gaps in the prosecution case and the evidence of Pws-2 to 4the independent eye witness and injuredis not being reliable, this Court holds the present case as one where examination of the Investigating Officer was notvital, as the material witnesses turned against the case of the prosecution.

Since the material witnesses have turned down the prosecution's case, it is not safe to rely solely on the testimony of investigating officersfor connecting the accused with the offences alleged.

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.11

21.Having considered the hostile testimony of material witnesses, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of

LW3(Y.Rajesh), LW4(G.Elisha), LW5(G.Sathaiah), LW8(G.Nagaraju),

LW9(T.Ramulu), LW10(B.Venkateswarlu) and LW11(R.Venu Babu) and the prosecution failed to produce the witnesses of LW.14(B.Amar Naik),

LW.15(Dr.A.Akeem) and LW16(Dr.K.Vahila Chowdary) since 01.11.2013

before the court even though several adjournments given, this court

closed their evidence.

22. In the case at hand, though, there cannot be any controversy, as to the death of deceased and injuries to PW3 and PW4 in a road traffic accident, which is evident from Ex.P9 photographs with CD, Ex.P7 inquest panchanama, Postmortem report, and Wound certificates of PW3 and

PW4, there is no positive and satisfactory material establishing the fact that, death of deceased and injuries to PW3 and PW4 are the direct result of rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle by the accused. Therefore, in the absence of such concrete evidence attracting necessary elements, the accused cannot be held to be liable for the offences levelled against him. As already stated, only on account of settlement arrived in between the parties, outside the Court, the prosecuting party turned against prosecution during evidence, and hence, it can be said without any hesitation that, no case is made out against accused, for want of legal and acceptable evidence, and consequently, accused is entitled for acquittal.

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.12

23. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case for the offence under section U/sec. 337,338, and 304-A of I.P.C. establishing the fact that the accused acted as the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the incident, contravening the provisions under sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the

MV Act, the accused does not arise.

24. In the result, and for the reasons stated above, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec. 337,338 and 304-A of I.P.C., and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six(6) months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No case property is produced in this case; as such, no order is passed.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined For ProsecutionFor Defence PW.1 : M.Aruna Kumari (Defacto complainant)-Nil- PW.2 : G.Vijay Kumar (Circumstantial witness) PW.3 : P.Bhaskara Rao (Mediator) Exhibits Marked For Prosecution Ex.P1 : Report of PW.1 given to police Ex.P2 : U/sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P3 : Scene observation report Ex.P4 : Inquest report For Defence NIL. Material Objects Marked NIL

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

AJMFC, ADDANKI

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.13

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: ADDANKI.

Present: Smt. S Priyadarshini Nuthakki,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Thursday, this the 16 th day of April, 2025

C.C.No. 511 of 2022

(Cr.No.18/2022 of J.Pangulur P.S)

Between: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Martur police station ... Complainant

And

Jampani Haribabu, S/o.Srinivasulu, Aged 50 years, R/o.Kondamanjuluru village, J.Panguluru Mandal. (Driver of Tractor/trailer bearing No.AP 27 TT 9151/9152) … Accused

Charges under section(s) :337, 338 , 304-A of I.P.C. and sec.134(a)

(b) r/w 187 of MV Act

Date of occurrence:26.02.2022

Date of report:26.02.2022

Date of appearance:16.12.2022

Date of commencement of trial:01.11.2023

Date of closure of trial:11.04.2025

Date of Judgment :16.04.2025

Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Accused :Found not guilty

Result of the Case: In the result, and for the reasons stated above, I find that the accused is not guilty of the offences punishable U/sec. 337,338 and 304-A of I.P.C., and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act. Accordingly, he

AJFCM , Addanki. CC No.511 of 2022 16 th April, 2025. Page No.14 is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six(6) months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. No case property is produced in this case; as such, no order is passed.

Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 15.10.2022. On 16.12.2022, copies furnished to the accused. On 23.06.2023 accused is examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C, substance of accusation for the offence

U/sec.337,338 and 304-A of I.P.C., and sec.134(a)(b) r/w 187 of MV Act, against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.10 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material available on record, he denied the same, reported no defence evidence on 15.04.2025 and arguments heard on both sides and posted for Judgment. On 16.04.2025, Judgment Pronounced.

Sd/- S Priyadarshini Nuthakki

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Bapatla.