Page 1 of 15
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
District of East Godavari Calendar of Cases tried by III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM III ADDL.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of offence Report of complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail (1) (2)(3) (4) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26-10-201826-10-2018 A1: 29-10-2018A1:29-10-2018 A2: sec 41A notice ------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commencement of trial Close of trail Sentence of order Explanation for delay (5)(6) (7) (8) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15-03-2021 29.03. 2023 12-04-2023Due to non- production of witness. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment of Calendar Case No.447/2018 on the file of III Addl. Junior Civil
Judge cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Rajamahendravaram.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Complainant: The State Rep. by the Sub Inspector of Police, III Town L & O PS in Cr.No.412/2018of III Town L & O police station, Rajamahendravaram. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of the Accused Father Name Age Caste/Religion: Calling Village ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.Korrayi Ganapathi, S/o. Bheema Raju Late, 29 years, SC Mala, SC Colony, Raghavapuram village,
Korukonda Mandal, Now at Beside Praveen Hospital,
TV road, near Quarry Market, Rajamahendravaram.
(Driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 W 1248).
2. Kadiyala Ganapathi, S/o. Suryanarayana, 40 years,
Settibalija, D.No.2-107, B-Block, Near Dharalamma Temple,
Satilite city, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.
( Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 W 1248).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence : under section 304-A of IPC and section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act. Finding : Accused No.1 is found guilty and accused No.2 found not guilty.
Sentence : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Under sections 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act. They are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also pay fine of Rs 10,000/ - for the offence punishable Under section 304-A of IPC. In case of default in payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month as default sentence.The remand
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 2 of 15 period under gone by A1 if any has given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. A1 has informed about his right of appeal before Appellate Court and also informed about his right to get free legal aid from Hon’ble chairman, DLSC, Rajamahendravaram. Office is here by directed to give free copy of judgment to accused No.1.
III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.
Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate: East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram.
Dis.No. Dt. .
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 3 of 15
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM III
ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS:
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
Present: Smt. S.VARA LAKSHMI
III Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Rajamahendravaram.
Wednesday, on this the 12th day of April, 2023
CALENDAR CASE. No.447 of 2018
BETWEEN:
The State: Represented by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
III Town L & O P.S,
Rajamahendravaram.
... Complainant
AND
1.Korrayi Ganapathi, S/o. Bheema Raju Late, 29 years, SC Mala, SC Colony, Raghavapuram village,
Korukonda Mandal, Now at Beside Praveen Hospital,
TV road, near Quarry Market, Rajamahendravaram.
(Driver of the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 W 1248).
2. Kadiyala Ganapathi, S/o. Suryanarayana, 40 years,
Settibalija, D.No.2-107, B-Block, Near Dharalamma Temple,
Satilite city, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal.
( Owner of the Lorry bearing No. AP 05 W 1248).
… Accused
This case has come before this court on this date for final hearing in the
Presence of learned Sri APP for prosecution and of Sri S.Suresh Babu, advocate
for accused and upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record and
having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, III Town L & O Police
Station has filed charge sheet in Crime. No.412/2018 of III Town L & O P.S,
Rajamahendravaram for the offence punishable under section 304-A of
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 4 of 15
Indian Penal Code (Indian Penal Code here in after refer to as IPC) and section 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and section 5 r/w 180 of Motor
Vehicle Act (Motor Vehicle Act here in after refer to as MV Act).
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:- On 26.10.2018 evening at about 4.30 PM, the L.W.1 along with her daughter /deceased are started form Konthamuru village on Honda Activa moped bearing NO. AP 05 CX 5404 towards Lalacheruvu for dropping the deceased at the house of L.W.5.
On the way at about 4.50 PM, when they reached on quarry Lalacheruvu road, near YSR Statue, Chodeswara Nagar Center, Lalacheruvu,
Rajamhenravaram, meantime the accused driver of lorry bearing No. AP 05
W 1248 drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner while proceeding from Lalacheruvu towards Subbaraonagar side and dashed against the
L.W.1 moped in opposite direction, due to which the L.W.1 along with her daughter are fallen on the road and the lorry rear tire are rolled to daughter, in which that the deceased sustained defeat injury to the head, went out of organs and died on the spot. Basing on the strength of statement of L.W.1,
L.W.17/SI of police registered the case in Cr.No.412/2018 under section 304-A of IPC and the L.W.17 visited the scene of offence, drafted scene observation report with the support of L.W.12 and L.W.13, drew the rough sketch of the scene and also visited the government District Hospital,
Rajamahendravaram. Secure the L.W1, examined her and recorded her statement. During the course of investigation on 27.10.2018, the L.W.17 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.W.12 at
L.W.14 at the Morturary of Government Hospital, Rajamahendravaram secured the blood relatives of the deceased examined them and recorded their statements. Later the body was sent for PM Examination. Later the
L.W.17 visited the scene of offence, secured the L.W.6 to L.W.9 examined them and recorded their statements. On 29.10.2018, the L.W.17 arrested the
A1 while the accused was surrendered before L.W.17, produced him before this court along with remand report. At the time of arrest the accused, the
L.W.17 secured the A2 as L.W.10, who is owner of the crime vehicle, examined and recorded his statement. On 30.10.2018, the L.W.17 secured the L.W.10 and L.W.11, examined them and recorded their statements. On 31.10.2018, the L.W.17 obtained motor vehicle inspection report form L.W.5 with opinion. He opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle and also advised to SHO to lunch
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 5 of 15 prosecution against the driver under section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and
Section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act against the owner of crime vehicle. On 15.11.2018, the L.W.17 got served a notice under section 41(1) of Code of
Criminal Procedure (Code of Criminal Procedure here in after refer as Cr.P.C) to the A2. A2 is the owner of the crime vehicle as he allowed the A1 to drive the crime vehicle without valid driving licence. L.W.16 conduct autopsy over the dad body the deceased and issued PM examination certificate with opinion. He opined that the deceased died due to injuries to vital parts like brain. L.W.17 obtained the MVI report form L.W.16 with opinion and also obtained the PM Examination report of the deceased from L.W.16. After completion of investigation L.W.17 has filed charge sheet int his case.
3.This case has taken on file for the offence punishable under sections 304-A of IPC and section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act.
4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5.Accused Nos 1 and 2 has examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and section 3 r/w 181 of MV
Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act and substance of accusation of the above said alleged offence had read over and explained to the accused in
Telugu language for which they have denied the same and They has claimed to be tried.
6.During course of trial, prosecution has examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The prosecution has given up the evidence of L.W.8,
L.W.13 and L.W.14. The L.W.3 to L.W.5, L.W.10 and L.W.11 had closed by this court as not produced since long time.
7.After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused has examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C on incriminating evidence available from the evidence of prosecution and same has explained and read over to the accused in
Telugu language for which they have denied the same and reported no defence evidence. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of defence.
8.Heard arguments of both sides. Court has gone through the entire record and perused the record.
9.Now the point that for determination is:
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 6 of 15 section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act. beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT:
10.In order to prove the prosecution case, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.
11.The learned A.P.P has argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 and coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 has supported the prosecution case and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and punish the accused according to law and also filed the written arguments.
12.On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are not at all sufficient to prove accusations against the accused and the evidence of prosecution witnesses suffered with several contradictions, omissions and the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused has committed the offence as alleged by the prosecution and also filed the written arguments.
13.In this case, to prove their assertion prosecution firstly examined P.W-1 who deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about evening 4.30 PM she along with her daughter B.K. Lakshya aged 4 years are started from Konthamuru village on her hero Honda Activa moped towards Lalacheruvu for dropping her daughter at the house of her sister. When they reached Swarnandhra old aged home one lorry came opposite direction without blowing horn and in a speed manner hit out Honda bike. Due to which she fell on left side and her daughter fell on right side under the tires of lorry. Lorry a crossed the head of her daughter. Due to which her daughter died on the spot. Driver was escaped by stopping the lorry side of the road. When she saw her daughter, her daughter brain was come out. Her baby was taken to government hospital, Rajahmundry in ambulance. Doctor also stated the same that her daughter died on the spot. Police recorded her statement at hospital. Later also police examined her and recorded her statement.
14. Further prosecution has examined of P.W2 who has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about 5.00 PM, he received a phone call for P.W.1 and informed him about the accident. P.W.1 stated to him that she along with deceased going to Lalacheruvu by bike. When she reached to the
Swarnandhra Old age home, Quarry market center, one lorry came in opposite direction of the bike of P.W.1 in a speed and without blowing horn hit to bike of P.W.1, as a result P.W.1 fell on the left side of the bike and her his daughter fell towards right side of the bike and lorry a cross head of The
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 7 of 15 his daughter. P.W.1 also stated to him that after the accident, driver of the lorry stopped the lorry and run away from that place. immediately, he rushed to the hospital from Kakinada when, he reached to the hospital,
Doctors stated to him about the death of his daughter. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
15.Further prosecution has examined P.W3 who has deposed that on 26.10.2018 in between 4.30 to 5.00 PM, when he was got doing the work at gate of work shop, one lorry bearing No.AP 05W 1248 has been coming from
Lalacheruvu to quarry center in a rash and negligently hit the scooty coming from quarry market center to Lalacheruvu. Lorry driver came in a wrong direction and caused accident. As a result, one lady who is driving the
Scooty had fell left side on the road and the baby of said lady had fell right side of the road and lorry back tyres across the head of the baby who is the deceased in this case. The baby died on spot and brain of the said baby comes out. The lorry has parked from right to left and the driver ran away from the place. People gathered there. He does not know rest of the facts happened later. Police has shifted lorry and scooty after clearing the traffic.
Police has examined him and recorded his statement.
16.Further prosecution has examined P.W4 who has deposed on 26.10.2018 at about 4.30 to 5.00 PM, he has gone to the Varun JCB work shop,
Lalacheruvu, Rajamahendravram for repair of his JCB. One lorry has been coming in a rash manner from Lalacheruvu junction to quarry center road.
The lorry in a wrong side dashed one lady who is driving Honda active in a right direction from opposite side. As a result, lorry of the tires crossed the head of pillion rider ie, one baby girl and brain has come out. Said girl died on the spot. Lorry of the driver parked the lorry in a right direction and escaped the place. Mean while ambulance has come to the spot. The lorry bearing Number is AP 05W 1248. Police has examined him and recorded his statement.
17.Further prosecution has examined P.W5 who has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about 4.30 to 5.00 PM., when he was going out from the work shop to take tea, mean while he has seen one mother and daughter moving on the scooty by driving by mother from quarry market to Lalacheruvu. One lorry has proceeded to from quarry center to Lalacheruvu road and in a rash and negligent manner take the turned and hit the scooty. As a result of which mother fell outside of the road and baby fell on the road and lorry
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 8 of 15 back tyres crossed on the head of the baby and baby dead on the spot. On seeing the result, the driver of the lorry stationed the lorry ahead near the incident and escaped from the scene. Mother and dead body of the baby shifted to hospital. Police has examined him and recorded his statement.
18.Further prosecution has examined P.W.6 who has deposed that in this case, on 27.10.2018 at about 11.10 AM he has received a requisition from III town L & O Police, Rajamahendravram. On the same day, he had conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased by name Banasu
Lakshya. He has found internal and external injuries as mentioned in his autopsy report. He is of the opinion that the cause of death of the deceased was occurred due to Hypo volumic shock due to injuries to vital organ like brain. To that effect, he had issued autopsy report. On the same day he has commenced autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at about 11.20 AM and he has concluded autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at 1.30 PM.
19.Further prosecution has examined P.W.7 who has deposed that on 29.10.2018, he has received a requisition form III Town L & O P.S,
Rajahmundry for inspector of crime vehicle bearing No. AP 05 W 1248 which is a goods carrier HMV 2016 model TATA. On 30.10.2018 at about 4.30 PM he has inspected the vehicle Act III town Police station premises. He has put the vehicle to road test. He has found no damages and he has found that the breaks and breaking system are intact and in order i.e., working condition. He is of opined that the accident had occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. To that effect, he has issued motor vehicle inspection report.
20.Further prosecution has examined P.W.8 who has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at 5.30 PM, when he was present in the police station he has received information about fatal accident near Lalacheruvu center, then he and his staff proceeded to said place. He has found dead body at the scene. He has taken the photographs of the scene. He has sent dead body of the deceased to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry. He has shifted crime vehicles to the police station. He has recorded the statement of P.W.1 Hospital. Based on the strength of Ex.P1 statement
P.W.1 he has registered crime vide FIR No.412/2018 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC. He has issued FIR. He has secured the presence of mediators L.W.12, L.W.13 and they have
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 9 of 15 proceeded to the scene of offence has prepared rough sketch. Scene observation report got prepared in the presence of above said mediators.
He has proceeded to the Hospital, he has examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. On the next day he has secure the presence of above said mediators, L.W.14 and they have proceeded to the Government Hospital,
Rajahmundry. In the presence of L.W.12 to L.W.14 he has got conducted inquest. He has sent the dead body of the deceased for autopsy. He has proceeded to scene of offence. He has secured the presence of P.W.3 to
P.W.5 and L.W.8 and he has examined them and recorded their statement. On the same day he has sent requisition to MVI on 30.10.2018 he has secured the present of L.W.10, L.W.11 and examined and recorded statements of L.W.10 and L.W.11 at scene of offence.
21. Further prosecution has examined P.W.9 who has deposed that on 26.10.2018 at about 7.00 Pm III Town L & O PS, called him to act as mediator in this case. He has proceeded to near Varun JCB Workshop at
Lacheruvu Road, Scene observation report got drafted in the presence of him, L.W.13 police drafted scene observation report. He has signed on it.
He know the contents of Ex.P7. He has found blood stains on the road and also scratch marks with flesh. He has proceeded to Government
Hospital on the next day as per the instructions of III Town L & O PS at about 8.00 AM inquest was conducted in his presence and in the presence of L.W.14 over the dead body of the deceased Bonasu Lakshmi, inquest report under ExP8 was drafted by him. Due to the lorry accident deceased died.
22.The case of prosecution is totally based on direct evidence of P.W.1 and same has corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 which is also corroborated with the postmortem and MVI report issued by the medical officer and MVI under Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. As seen from the above evidence the gist of the prosecution case as per the evidence of P.W.1 was that on 26.10.2018 at about evening 4.30 PM she along with her daughter
B.K. Lakshya aged 4 years are started from Konthamuru village on her hero
Honda Activa moped towards Lalacheruvu for dropping her daughter at the
house of her sister. When they reached Swarnandhra old aged home one lorry came opposite direction without blowing horn and in a speed manner hit out Honda bike. Due to which she fell on left side and her daughter fell on right side under the tires of lorry. Lorry a crossed the head of her daughter.
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 10 of 15
Due to which her daughter died on the spot. Driver was escaped by stopping the lorry side of the road. When she saw her daughter, her daughter brain was come out. Her baby was taken to government hospital, Rajahmundry in ambulance. Doctor also stated the same that her daughter died on the spot.
The said evidence of P.W1 has corroborated by P.W.2 to P.W.5. Even though the learned defence counsel cross-examines the P.W.1 to P.W.5, he has failed to discredit their evidence on the above material aspects. Therefore there is sufficient corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 by P.W.2 to P.W.5 to believe the version of the prosecution to that extent.
23.Further in support of ocular evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 to P.W.5, the P.W 6 / who is the then medical officer examined dead body of deceased and issued autopsy certificate under Ex.P2. Therefore, the autopsy certificate of deceased where in P.W.6 specifically mentioned the injuries sustained by deceased in regard to place of injury, the nature of injuries received in the accident caused by accused are corroborated with the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and the same is not discredited by the defence counsel during cross examination. Further P.W.7 / MVI who issued Ex.P3 MVI. The evidence of
P.W6, P.W7 and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are fully corroborated with the ocular evidence of P..W.1 to P.W.5.
24.Further it is the case of the defence that the accused were falsely implicated in this case, but there is no supporting evidence adduced by the accused to prove the said suggestion. However it is settled law that a suggestion without positive proof cannot be accepted and also cannot be relied upon.
25.There were minor variations, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of
P.W.1 to P.W.5 in narration of their evidence before the Court. Therefore, there is no need to give much importance to them as they were not go in to the root of the prosecution case and further they will not give better defence to the accused. Relating to this aspect this court is relying on a decision reported in 2006(1) ALD Criminal 279 S.C. between State of Andhra
Pradesh Vs Konda Gopalam Where in the Hon’ble Apex Court held that “every discrepancy, contradiction in statement of witnesses cannot be treated as fatal to the case of the prosecution case and discrepancies which is not fatal to the case not create any infirmity.” In another decision reported in AIR
2012 SUPREME COURT 37 between Takdir SAMSUDDIN Sheikh -vs-
State if Gujarat and another where in Hon’ble court held that “even there are Minor discrepancies, contradictions, omission the Evidence not to be
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 11 of 15 rejected in entirely”. The above decisions were applicable to the facts of the present case.
26.Further learned counsel for the accused contended that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are interested witnesses and remaining witnesses are chance witnesses to the prosecution case and who are alleged to have been not witnesses to the incident, therefore, basing on their evidence, the accused cannot be punished. The Learned defence counsel submitted and relied decision in
Piginarayi Ranga Rao verses state of Andhra Pradesh by Hon'ble High
Court of A.P reported in 2009 Crlj 3699 (AP). This Court has gone through the above said decision carefully and with due respect, the facts circumstances of said case is different from facts and circumstances of present case. Hence, with due respect said decision not applicable to this present case in hand. Further learned counsel for the accused contended that there is no test identification parade for identification of the accused
No.1 by the witnesses, therefore, basing on their evidence, the accused cannot be punished. The Learned defence counsel further submitted and relied decision in Syed Zameer verses State of Andhra Pradesh by Hon'ble
High Court of A.P reported in 2002 (2) ALT (Cri) 272 (AP). This Court has gone through the above said decision carefully and with due respect, the facts circumstances of said case is different from facts and circumstances of present case. Hence, with due respect said decision not applicable to this present case in hand.
27.The Learned Prosecutor submitted and relied decision in Ramesh @ Tillu
vs State by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi High Court reported on 28
November, 2003 in (2004) DLT 107, 2004 (72) DRJ 299 Hon’ble court had observed “ It will not be correct to say that failure to hold a test identification parade would per se be fatal to the prosecution case and render the evidence regarding identification
in the court unworthy of any credit. Rather the evidence of identification in the Court is the
only substantive evidence but the weight to be attached to such evidence of identification in the Court is to be assessed by the Court as a matter of fact in the light of facts and circumstances of each case.”. The said decision applicable to this present case in hand. The Learned Prosecutor further submitted and relied decision in SN
Hassain Verses State of Andra Pradesh and in Alister anthony verses
State of Maharashtra. The said decisions applicable to this present case in hand. This court Relating to above aspect relied in a decision reported in
Masalti v. State of U.P. 1964(8) SCR 133 Hon’ble Apex court had observed
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 12 of 15 that- “though the evidence of an interested or partisan witness has to be weighed by the Court very carefully but it would be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by a witness should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of a partisan or interested witness. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.” Further relating to same aspect in another Judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2011) 6 SCC 350 [Birender Poddar Vs.
State of Bihar], it is held that: “Merely because witnesses are related, it is not a ground to discard their evidence. In many cases, only relatives are available for giving evidence, having regard to trend in present society, where other than relations, witnesses are not available. However, evidence of interested witnesses has to be carefully scrutinized.” In the light of above decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court if we see the facts of the present case in hand out of the eight witnesses examined by the prosecution and among them P.W.1 who is the eye witness and further on close scrutiny of her evidence this court is of view that her evidence is natural, cogent and convincing and there is no reason to disbelieve her version on any ground. Further during cross examination also the learned defence counsel has failed discredit their evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 on any material aspects and he did not elicit any new things contrary to the evidence deposed by them in their chief examination. Further mere giving suggestions to P.W.1 to P.W.5 not sufficient and the said suggestions should be supported by positive evidence to believe the version of the defence and basing on those suggestions the entire case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out as if nothing was happened.
28. Further the learned counsel for the accused raised another contention that the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 only and the prosecution has failed to mention the topography and distances of both vehicles and MVI did not inspect both the vehicles and therefore the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 cannot be sole basis to punish the accused. However as per section 134 of Indian
Evidence Act to prove the case against the accused it does not require corroboration of much number of witnesses with each other. It is settled proposition of law that if the Court is satisfied, single testimony is sufficient to convict the accused if it is reliable and trustworthy and more over Ex.P4 clearly discloses that the accused was wrongly dashed the deceased vehicle.
29.Relating to this aspect in decision reported in 2006(3) Apex Court
Judgments 201 (S.C.) : 2006(4) Criminal Court Cases 01 (S.C.) :
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 13 of 15 (2006)11 SCC 323 between Bhimappa Chandappa v. State of Karnataka,
Hon’ble court held that- “testimony of a solitary witness can be made the
basis of conviction. The credibility of the witness requires to be tested with reference to the quality of his evidence which must be free from blemish or suspicion and must impress the Court as natural, wholly truthful and so convincing that the Court has no hesitation in recording a conviction solely on his uncorroborated testimony.” From the above decision it is clear that no particular number of witnesses can be insisted upon is amply reflected in
Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The under lying principle in section 134 the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the sole ground of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to punish the accused on such proof and it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.
30.Therefore on over all consideration of the oral, documentary evidence in the record at best the evidence on record is sufficient to prove that the cause of the death of the deceased had occurred due to the accident which had caused by the negligent or rash act of the accused No.1 which is an offence the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal.
31.There is no evidence that accused No.1 had no driving licensee and prosecution had not produced any evidence that the A1 had no driving license and A2 negligently given vehicle to the A1. Therefore this court has come to conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against the A1 and A2 for the offence publishable under section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act.
32.So in the light of the above discussion, the evidence prosecution witnesses is found to be truthful in regard to accident caused by A-1 and no reasons to disbelieve their evidence and to believe that the accused A-1 was falsely implicated in this case. The discrepancies raised by the learned defense
Counsel are minor in nature and they do not go in to the root of the prosecution case and therefore it need not be given much importance to them.
33.In view of the above decisions and discussion, this court has come to conclusion that the prosecution has failed to established the offence under section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act against A1 and
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 14 of 15
A2 beyond reasonable doubt and they are acquitted under section 255(1) of
Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act. The prosecution has established the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC against A1. A1 is liable for punishment under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.
Typed to dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12 th day of April, 2023.
III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
34.The accused A1 when asked about the quantum of punishment to be imposed against him, A1 has submitted he is not relating to this case and he has wife, children and old parents and his family members are depended upon his earnings. He further submitted that if he is convicted in this case and sent to Jail, his family members would suffer immensely and requested the court to take lenient view in imposing sentence.
35.Considering the nature of the offence proved against the accused and its gravity, this court is not inclined to invoke beneficial provisions of Probation of Offenders Act in favour of the accused. However, keeping in view of the plea made by the accused, the age of the accused and more particularly considering the fact that under which circumstances the accused had committed the offence and family back ground of the accused and deceased, this court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take lenient view. The circumstances do justify considering leniently.
36.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable
Under sections 3 r/w 181 of MV Act and section 5 r/w 180 of MV Act. They are acquitted under section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and he is convicted under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. Hence A1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and also pay fine of Rs 10,000/ - for the offence punishable Under section 304-A of IPC. In case of default in payment of fine shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month as default sentence.The remand period under gone by A1 if any has given set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. A1 has informed about his right
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.
Page 15 of 15 of appeal before Appellate Court and also informed about his right to get free legal aid from Hon’ble chairman, DLSC, Rajamahendravaram. Office is here by directed to give free copy of judgment to accused No.1.
Typed to dictation directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 12 th day of April, 2023.
III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW.1: Bhumula Vedavathi. -- NONE--
PW.2: Bonasu Apparao.
PW.3: Dandabathina Prabhudas.
PW.4: Routhu Ramesh.
PW.5: Peruri Satya Sainath.
PW.6: Dr. T.D.S.Swarrop.
PW.7: I. Sainadh.
PW.8: N. Ramu.
PW.9: Koppula Hanuman Prasad.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE
Ex.P1: The Statement.--NIL--
Ex.P2: The autopsy report dated 27.10.2018.
Ex.P3: The Motor vehicle Inspection report.
Ex.P4: The Photographs along with CD.
Ex.P5: The FIR
Ex.P6: The Rough sketch.
Ex.P7: The Scene observation report.
Ex.P8: The inquest report.
M.O’s MARKED: --Nil--
III ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM
III ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM
CC.No 447 of 2018.
IIIAJCJ/III AJFCM: Rajamahendravaram.