IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
TANDUR :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
PRESENT: SMT. SALMA FATIMA, Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Tandur, R.R. District.
DATED THIS THE 03 rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
C.C. NO. 43 OF 2011
Between: The State of A.P. through S.H.O. of Peddemul P.S.……….Complainant
A N D
Nagappa S/o. Hanmanthu, age; 30 years, Occ: Driver RTC bus No. KA 32 F 1452, Chincholi Dept.Gulburga District. ………….Accused
This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sr. A.P.P.O., Counsel for prosecution and of Sri.Y. Baswaraj Advocate for accused, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The S.H.O. of Peddemul P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 14-05-2010 at 1400 hours, one Vadla Narsimha came to police station and lodged a compliant, in which he stated that on 14-05-2010 he along with driver Maisaiah, E./No. 272685 took the bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 4075 in the Depot for Hyderabad route, at about 0540 hours, they left the Tandur with passengers, while proceeding towards Tandur on the way at Janagam turning at about one bus bearing No. KA 32 F 1452 belongs to Karnataka State and the accused drove the bus in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to their bus in opposite direction, as resulting of which he and driver and others inmates of both the buses have been received bleeding injuries. Immediately the injured were shifted to District Hospital,, Tandur for treatment, one injured by name Kum. Madhuri was succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital at about 2330 hours. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered in Cr. No.32/2010 under section 337,338 and 304-A of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before this Hon’ble court.
2. Cognizance was taken on file under section 337,338 and 304-A of IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies furnished to him u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/s 251 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the offence as false and claimed to be tried.
3. During the course of trial, prosecution examined
P.W.1 to P.W.19 and got marked Exs. P1 to P23. No document was marked on behalf of the accused. On the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. The
Accused denied the incriminating circumstances as false and reported no defence witnesses.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Point for consideration: -
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
6. Ingredients The ingredients to be satisfied in order to constitute an offence under section 304-A Indian Pinal Code are :- (I). Identity of the accused.
(ii). Death caused by the accused during any rash or negligent Act of the accused
(iii). Death of the deceased.
7. PW1 is the complainant. He deposed that he is working as
Conductor at Tandur Depot. On 14-05-2010 he was conductor to the RTC bus bearing NO. AP 11 Z 4075. They were proceeding from Hyderabad to
Tandur. At about 12.30PM when they reached near Janagam turning one RTC bus to Karnataka Depot bus coming in opposite direction and hit their bus, due to the said accident, he along with driver and other passengers sustained injuries. He further stated that he came to know one of the passenger in their bus succumbed to injures and he was shifted to
Government hospital Tandur through ambulance. He further stated that after obtaining initial treatment at hospital and he proceeded to police station Peddemul and lodged complaint against the accused who drove the
Karnataka Depot RTC bus. He stated that he does not know the accused. He further stated that he can not say with whom negligence the said accident occurred. Ex.P1 is the compliant lodged by him. In his cross examination by
APP he denied that he stated before police that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of Karnataka bus Depot.
8. PW2 deposed that in the year 2010 he along with his wife and children boarded the bus at about 12.10PM at Dharur which was coming from
Hyderabad and proceeding towards Tandur. He further stated that when the bus reached near Janagam turning, accident occurred when one Karnataka
Depot RTC bus hit their bus in which they are travelling, due to the said accident, he lost 09 tooths, his wife sustained injuries and his daughter sustained injuries and shifted to Government hospital, Tandur and who in turn refer to Hyderabad for better treatment. He further stated that while shifting to hospital at Hyderabad his daughter succumbed to injures. He further stated that he can not say with whom negligence said accident occurred.
:;4::
9. PW3 deposed that on 14-05-2010 she along with her husband and children boarded the bus in the afternoon at Dharur which was coming from Hyderabad and proceeding towards Tandur. when the bus reached near Duggapur gate and Janagam turning, accident occurred one
Karantaka depot RTC bus hit their bus in which they were travelling. She further stated that due to the said accident her husband lost 09tooths, and she sustained injuries and her daughter sustained injuries on her stomach and she was shifted to Government hospital, Tandur later her daughter was shifted to Hyderabad in ambulance for better treatment. She further stated that her daughter was accompanied by her father later she came to know her daughter Succumbed to injuries. She further stated that she can not say with whom negligence said accident occurred.
10. PW4 is deposed that at about 8 years back she along with LW13/L. Pandu was going to Moinabad from Tandur in Karnataka
RTC bus, when bus reached near Janagam turning there was an accident between their bus and another bus coming in opposite direction, due to the said accident, she sustained a fracture to her right leg and injury on her mouth and other parts of the body. She further stated that she can not identify the driver of the crime vehicle.
11. PW5 deposed that in the year 2010 he boarded the
Karnataka bus bearing NO. KA 32 F 1452 to go Hyderabad from Tandur, when bus reached near Janagam turning there was an accident between their bus and another bus coming in opposite direction, due to the said accident his tooth were broken, and sustained invisible injures all over his body. He further stated that rest of the passengers in the bus was also sustained injuries due to the said accident, later they were shifted to Government hospital, Tandur through 108 ambulance and he can identify the driver of the crime vehicle accused is the same person standing in the court hall who drove the crime vehicle on the alleged day of incident.
12. In his cross examination PW5 stated that immediately after the accident he went to unconscious statement and he gained conscious within 10 minutes and police recorded his statement at Tandur
Government hospital. The accident occurred since both buses were running in high speed and he can not say with whose fault the said accident occurred. He further stated that he has not stated to police that he can identified the driver of the crime vehicle in his 161 Cr.p.c.
statement.
13. PW6 deposed that in the year 2010 he boarded the
Karnataka bus he along with his wife and children with PW4 at Tandur to go to Hyderabad, when bus reached near Janagam turning there was an accident between their bus and another bus coming in opposite direction coming from Hyderabad, due to the said accident he sustained injury below his right eyebrow. He further stated that his wife lost front four tooths, and his daughter sustained injury on her right cheek and sooches were made on that injury, thereafter he along with his family were shifted to Government hospital Tandur. He further stated that he can not identify the driver of the crime vehicle.
14. PW7 is deposed that at about 8 years back police conducted scene of offence panchanama in respect of accident. Ex.P2 is the scene of offence panchanama. In his cross examination he stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.p2 since he is an illiterate.
15. PW8 is B. Bandappa deposed that at about 8 years back police conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of Madhuri in his presence and she died in the road accident. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama. In his cross examination he stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.p3 since he is an illiterate.
16. PW9 is the deposed that at about 8 years back she boarded the RTC bus at longer house to reach the Tandur, when the bus reached near Janagam turning one Karnataka RTC bus came in opposite direction and hit their bus, due to the said accident he sustained injuries, he was shifted to Government hospital, Tandur for treatment. He stated that he can not say the bus bearing number and he can not identify the driver of the Karantaka bus, the accused.
17. PW10 is deposed that at about 8 years she boarded the
RTC bus of Karnataka Depot at Tandur to go to Hyderabad when the bus reached near Janagam turning one RTC bus of coming from Hyderabad in opposite direction and hit their bus, due to the said accident she sustained injuries on her left leg and lost one tooth, immediately she was shifted to Government hospital Tandur, for treatment through ambulance.
She stated that she does not know the bus bearing Number and can not identify driver of their bus.
18. PW11 is deposed that at about 8 years back on 14-05- 2010 he boarded the RTC bus of Karnataka Depot at Tandur to go to
Vikarabad in view of his office work, the driver of the bus driving the bus in speed manner when the bus reached near Janagam turning one RTC bus coming from Hyderabad towards Tandur in opposite direction hit their bus, due to the said accident, he sustained injuries on his mouth and he had three sutches. He further stated that he can identify the driver of bus in which he was travelling, accused is same person standing in the court hall, immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Tandur for treatment through Ambulance.
He further stated that he does not know the bus bearing Number in which he was travelling. In his cross examination, he stated that he has not stated to police that he can identified the driver of the crime vehicle in his 161
Cr.p.c. statement.
19. PW12 is deposed that at about 8 years back, he boarded the RTC bus of Karnataka Depot at Tandur to go to Dharur in view of marriage, when the bus reached near Janagam turning one RTC bus coming from Hyderabad towards Tandur in opposite direction hit their bus, due to the said accident he sustained injuries on his right leg and his wife received injury on her mouth and nose, immediately he was shifted to
Government hospital, Tandur for treatment through ambulance. He further stated that he does not know the bus bearing number in which he was travelling, and can not identify the driver of the bus in which he was travelling.
20. PW13 is deposed that at about 8 years back she boarded the RTC bus of Karnataka Depot at Tandur to go to Dharur in view of marriage, when the bus reached near Janagam turning one RTC bus coming from
Hyderabad towards Tandur in opposite direction hit their bus, due to which she sustained injuries on her mouth and nose and sustained injuries all over her body and she unable to walk. Immediately she was shifted to Government hospital, Tandur for treatment through ambulance. She further stated that she does not know the bus bearing number in which she was travelling, and can not identify the driver of the bus in which she was travelling.
21.PW14 is deposed that he is working RTC driver. He knows PW1 who worked as conductor along with him. On 14-05-2010 he started from
Tandur at about 5.30AM, and proceeded to Hyderabad and return from
Hyderabad 9.30AM proceeding towards Tandur, the bus bearing NO. AP 11
Z 4075, PW1 was the conductor for the said bus. He further stated that when the bus reached at 12.30PM at Durgapur gate, Janagam turning one
Karnataka depot bus came in opposite direction and he took his bus to the left side of the road and the Karnataka depot bus came to the right side of his bus and hit the bus, due to which he sustained fracture to his left leg and conductor sustained injuries and rest of the passengers also received injuries. He further stated that he can identify the driver of the
Karnataka bus bearing No. KS 32 1452 accused is the same person standing in the court hall. The said accident occurred due ot the negligent driving of the accused, immediately he was shifted to Tandur Government hospital for treatment.
22.In his cross examination he stated that the road proceeding towards
Hyderabad is a single road but two buses can cross on the said road, one can see the bus even from the turning also. The bus pertaining to Tandur
Depot is of Ashok Leyland company and bus pertaining to Karnataka depot is Tata Company.
23.PW15 is deposed that on 14-05-2010 she boarded the bus at
Chevella at about 11.30AM., to go to Tandur and when the bus reached near Janagam turning one RTC bus coming from Hyderabad towards
Tandur in opposite direction hit their bus, she sat beside the back seat of the driver, due to the said accident the glass mirror in front of him broken and said peaces pierced into her face, hands and her legs struck into the seat of the driver, she sustained severe injuries on her face, mouth and also lost her tooth, even till today her hands are not working properly and even she can not lift her hand towards up side due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. She further deposed that later she was shifted to
Government hospital Tandur for treatment through Ambulance. She further stated that she does not know the bus bearing number in which she was travelling, and can not identify the driver of the bus in which he was travelling.
24.PW16 is deposed that on 14-05-2010 he boarded the Karantaka bus at
Tandur at about 12.00AM., to go to Dharur and when the bus reached near
Dharur Shivalayam Temple, one RTC bus coming from Hyderabad towards
Tandur in opposite direction hit their bus, he sat on the 3rd seat from back, he sustained injuries on his left Jaw and on his nose. He further deposed that later he was shifted to Government hospital Tandur for treatment through ambulance. The accident occurred due to the negligence of their bus i.e.
Karnataka bus. He further deposed that he can identify the driver of crime vehicle and the accused is present before the court, witness identified the accused before court. In his cross examination stated that he was shifted to
Government hospital through 108 ambulance.
25.PW17 is the Investigation Officer deposed that on 14-05-2010 he received a compliant from PW1 basing on it registered a case in Crime No.
32/2010 for the offence under section 337 IPC, and he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 and proceeded to the scene, and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW8 and LW21/ Venkatesham, on the same day he visited the Govt. Hospital, Tandur, he recorded the statements of
LW2 to 17. He further deposed that on 15-05-2010 he received telephonic information that Kum. Madhuri died, he proceed to Govt. Hospital Tandur, he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of Kum. Madhuri in the presence of
PW5 and LW22/Ramulu. He further deposed that on the same day he gave requisition to the duty doctor for conducting autopsy over the dead body of deceased Madhuri, he gave requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle on 25-05-2010. Accordingly he inspected the crime vehicle at police station on 26-05-2010. Ex.P5 is the said
MVI Report, as per the Ex.P5 the MVI opinioned that there is no mechanical defects in crime vehicle. He further deposed that on 19- 05-2010 he arrested the accused and produced the before Hon’ble court for judicial custody. After collecting the medical certificate and other documents, he filed charge sheet against the accused.
26.In his cross examination he stated that he has not collected the any trip sheets and S.R. of the crime vehicle. APSRTC having Ashok Leyland buses and Karnataka RTC buses having Tata company and he has not deposited the crime vehicles before this court, except PW1 no injured witnesses stated the name of accused and his descriptive particulars, and he has not produce the APSRTC bus before MVI Inspection. He stated that it is true MVI conducted inspection of crime vehicle after 12 days of the incident.
27.PW18 is deposed that on 15-05-2010 he received requisition from
P.S. Peddemul to conduct autopsy over the dead body of deceased
Madhuri aged about 05 years, accordingly he conducted autopsy over the body of deceased Madhuri, he found the blunt injury i.e. on abdomen with small intestine perforation, and Rupture on liver lobes with perforation of portal vain cause of death according to his know is multiple injuries by severe loss of blood. Ex.P6 is the Postmortem Report. He further stated that he examined and issued wound certificates of other injured persons of accident. Ex.P7 to P23 are the wound certificates of injured persons.
28.PW19 is deposed that on 14-05-2010 he boarded on bus in Vikarabad
District to go to Tandur, when their bus reached Duggapur gate one Karnataka bus came in opposite direction and dashed to each other due to which he received fracture injury to his right leg and he lost 05 upper teeths. He further deposed that the said accident occurred due to the negligence of Karnataka bus driver, the other inmates of RTC bus sustained injuries after the accident they shifted to Tandur Government Hospital. In his cross examination he stated that after the accident he fell unconscious, again he regain conscious after 02 to 03 hours of accident at the time of police examined and recorded his statement. The scene of offence road is single road, there was turning due to which one cannot see the opposite direction vehicle. He further stated that he can not say how the accident occurred.
29.In this case, the complainant/PW1 himself turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Except Pws 5, 11 and 14 no other witnesses identified the accused. In this case the prosecution failed to file trip sheets and
S.R. of the crime vehicle and the prosecution failed to produce both the vehicles
before MVI for inspection to know the cause of accident. The prosecution has
conducted the inspection of crime vehicle after 12 days of delay, which can not be considered. Further the prosecution not examined any independent eye witness except injured persons. Further the Investigation Office/PW17 failed to submit rough sketch and photographs of the scene of offence.
30.To constitute the offence under section 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the identity of the accused, rash or negligent Act of the accused and death of the deceased. Though the Ex.P6 proves the death of deceased Kum.
Madhuri caused due to the above said accident. In this case only Pws 5,11 and 14 identified the accused who are the injured persons in this accident, no independent eye witness identified the accused. PW5 in his cross examination stated that the accident occurred since both buses were running in high speed and he can not say with whose fault the said accident occurred. PW11 did not say about rash or negligent Act of the accused. PW14 is the driver of other bus. Hence, evidence of PW5, 11 and P14 can not be considered, as they only identified the accused but they did not speak about rash or negligent act of the accused. More ever the prosecution failed to prove the rash or negligent Act of the accused before this court. The prosecution failed to produce rough sketch of the scene of offence. Though the prosecution conducted the inspection of crime vehicle but there was 12 days delay, hence the report of MVI Ex.P5 can not be considered.
31. Therefore, as seen from the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses there is no independent eye witness or any other proof to show that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent of the accused.
32. Therefore, in view of my discussion above, I hold that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.
33. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 337,338 and 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 03rd day of October, 2018.
JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
TANDUR.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.W.1 is V. Narsimha
P.W.2 is B. venkatesham
P.W.3 is B. Jurnamma
P.W.4 is L. Pentamma
P.W.5 is N. Venkatesh
P.W.6 is L. Pandu
P.W.7 is Ch. Dastaiah
P.W.8 is B. Bandappa
P.W.9 is Seetha Bai
P.W.10 is Lalitha
P.W.11 is R. Chandra Shekar
P.W.12 is Fathod Ram Shetty
P.W.13 is Rathod Bhemamma
P.W.14 is G. Maisaiah
P.W.15 is Naga Jyothi
P.W.16 is K. Arjun
P.W.17 is Raghunath
P.W.18 is Dr. Mukesh
P.W.19 is B. Buchappa
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex. P1 is Compliant.
Ex. P2 is Scene of offence panchanama
Ex. P 3 is Inquest Panchanama.
Ex. P 4 is FIR.
Ex. P5 is MVI Report.
Ex. P6 is Postmortem Examination Report.
Ex. P 7 to P23 are the Wound certificates
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
- NIL –
JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
TANDUR
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TANDUR,R.R.DIST.
CALENDER CASE NO. 43 OF 2011
Date Of Offence : 14-05-2010 1.
Date of Complaint : 14-05-2010 2.
Date of Apprehension : 19-05-2010 3.
Commencement of Trail : 01-02-2018 4.
Closure of Trial on : 13-08-2018 5.
Date of Judgment : 03-10-2018 6.
7.
Complainant : The State of Telangana through 8. S.H.O. of P.S. Peddamul.
8.Name of the accused : Nagappa S/o. Hanmanthu, age; 30 years, Occ: Driver RTC bus No. KA 32 F 1452, Chincholi Dept. Gulburga District
9. Offence : U/s. 337,338 and 304-A of IPC
10. Finding of the Court : Found not guilty
11. Result :
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 337,338 and 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds, if any, shall stand cancelled.
JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,
TANDUR Copy Submitted to: The Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, At L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad