IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS :: SRIKALAHASTI
Present:- Sri Srikanth, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,
Friday, the twenty-third (23rd ) day of November, 2018
C.C.No.60 of 2013 (Cr.No.22/2013 of Srikalahasti I Town Police Station) Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub Inspector
of Police, Srikalahasti I Town Police Station. .. Complainant
And:
1Arjun Ram Dewasi, aged about 31 years, S/o Menaram Devasi, Lamba Village, Bilara Taluk, Jodpur District, Rajasthan State, driver of TATA Company (18 wheelers), lorry bearing Reg.No.RJ-19-GB-3563.
2Thipparalla Shyamkumar, aged about 33 years, S/o T.Sambasivaiah,D.No.16-676,Venugopalapuram, Renigunta Town, driver of TATA ACE Mazic, bearing Reg.No.AP-03-Y-7838, caste by SC Mala.
In this case, on 10.05.2018, case against A1 was split-up by C.C.No.146/2018 as NBWs pending against him and the Police also filed special report stating that the whereabouts of A1 was not known and requested the court to grant time for execution of NBWs against A1. Hence, after splitting this case against A1, a new case number was allotted to him vide C.C.No.146/2018 and fresh NBWs against A1 was issued.
.. Accused
This case is coming on 20.11.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri
K.V.Ramana, Advocate for A2, upon hearing on both the sides and upon perusing the documents available on record and having stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti I Town Police Station laid charge sheet against accused in crime No.22/2013 for offences punishable under
Section 304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code and u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of
M.V.Act.
2. The facts of the prosecution in nutshell are as follows :- On 18.02.2013 at 7.00 pm., on Srikalahasti – Tirupati Road, in front of Railway Station, Panagal,
Srikalahasti wherein A2 being the driver of TATA ACE Magic bearing
Reg.No.AP-03-Y-7838 stopped the vehicle on the public road without taking any precautionary measures and suddenly opened the driver seat door. As a result, the rear side coming motorcyclist (Bullet bearing Reg.No.TN-09-A-4669) by name Paipuri Sampathkumar (deceased) and pillion rider by name Permidi
Manoj (PW1) touched to the vehicle door because of which both had fell down and at the same time the accused/A1 being the driver of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.RJ-19-GB-3563 was coming on the same direction at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and ran over on them. As a result, they sustained severe bleeding injuries and thereafter the bystanders shifted both the persons through 108 ambulance to the Area Hospital, Srikalahasti for treatment. At the
Hospital, the duty Doctor examined the said Sampath Kumar (deceased) and declared as dead. The complainant-PW1 was referred to SVRRGG Hospital,
Tirupati for better treatment. After the accident, both the drivers of the vehicles absconded by leaving their respective vehicles. Basing on the statement of PW1-
P.Manoj, PW8 registered the case in Cr.No.22/2013, u/Sec.304-A and 337 of IPC and investigated into.
During course of investigation, PW8 examined PW1, LW2-P.Revathi,
PW2, PW3, LW5-P.Sunikumar, LW6-Kuvvala Eswaraiah and LW7-Kommindala
Jayakrishna and recorded their statements. During further investigation, PW8 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Paipuri Sampath Kumar and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Medical Officer for autopsy. On 23.02.2013 at 10.00 am., A1 and A2 were arrested and sent for
Judicial custody. PW5-G.V.Prasad, the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the crime vehicles bearing Reg.Nos.RJ-19-GB-3563, AP-03-Y-7838 respectively issued inspection report and opined that “accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.” Later, the vehicle was handed over to the accused driver.
PW7-Dr.Share Khan, who treated the injured i.e., PW1 issued wound certificate in which, he opined that “injury No.1 is simple in nature and injury No.2 is grievous in nature. Hence, the section of law has been altered from Section 337 to Section 338 of IPC. PW6- Dr.V.Balakrishnab Naik, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased P.Sampath Kumar has opined that “the approximate time of death is 12 to 18 hours prior to postmortem examination and the cause of death to the best of knowledge is “Hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries.” After completion of investigation on all aspects, PW8 filed charge sheet.
3. Cognizance against accused for offences punishable under Section 304-
A and 338 of Indian Penal Code and u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act was taken and summons were issued.
4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code.
5. In this case, on 10.05.2018 case against A1 was split-up by
C.C.No.146/2018 as NBWs pending against him and the Police also filed special report stating that the whereabouts of A1 was not known and requested the court to grant time for execution of NBWs against A1. Hence, after splitting this case against A1, a new case number was allotted to him vide C.C.No.146/2018 and fresh NBWs against A1 was issued.
6. The accused/A2 was examined under Section 251 of Criminal
Procedure Code by explaining the substance of accusation for the offences punishable u/Sec.304-A and 338 of Indian Penal Code and u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act, in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.
6. During the course of trial, prosecution has examined as many as PW1 to
PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P7.
7. The evidence of witnesses are precised below:-
PW1-P.Manoj, deposed that on 18.02.2013, during evening hours i.e., at about 7.00 pm., when himself and Sampath Kumar were about to reach near
Srikalahasti Railway Station on their Bullet vehicle, the accused being the driver of TATA Ace Magic vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-Y-7838 stopped the vehicle and suddenly opened its door, due to which, their Bullet hit the stationed vehicle i.e., A2’s vehicle and they fell down, in the meanwhile, another vehicle i.e., a lorry bearing No.RJ-19-GB-3563 came suddenly and ran over them, due to which, the Testicles of deceased got separated with bleeding injuries and thereby succumbed to his injuries at the spot. Further, he himself too received injuries.
Then someone shifted them in 108 ambulance to the Area Hospital, Srikalahasti where the duty doctor declared Sampath Kumar died. He further identified A2 being the driver of the TATA Ace Magic vehicle. Later police came and recorded his statement. He was cross-examined by the defence
8. PW2-P.Venkataiah, deposed that on 18.02.2013 at 7.00 pm., while he was present in his house, he received a phone call from the Villager and he informed him that his son met with an accident near Railway Station,
Srikalahasti and further informed him that accident occurred due to colour TATA
Magic Auto negligently stopping on the road. He further narrated the incident.
Then immediately he went to the Area Hospital, Srikalahsti and came to know through duty doctor that his son has succumbed due to injuries sustained. He was cross-examined by the defence.
9. PW3-P.Prabhu, deposed that on 18.02.2013 at 7.00 pm., while he was present in his house, he received a phone call from Manoj and he informed him that his brother was met with an accident near Railway Station, Srikalahasti and further narrated the manner of accident. Then immediately he went to the scene of offence and observed pool of blood and also observed the TATA Magic Auto as well as lorry which were parked on one side of the road. Later, he went to the
Area Hospital, Srikalahsti and came to know through duty doctor that his brother succumbed due to injuries. He was cross-examined by the defence.
10. PW4-K.Prabhakar Reddy, deposed that, on 19.02.2013 at 7.00 am., in his presence along with LW10, inquest was held over the body of the deceased at
Area Hospital, Srikalahasti. Then, he affixed his signature on Ex.P12. He was cross-examined by the defence
11. PW5-G.Venkateswara Prasad, the Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that on 23.02.2013 at 1.00 pm., he inspected the crime vehicles in the premises of
Srikalahsti I Town Police Station and he found the break system of both the vehicles in good condition and he issued Ex.P3 motor vehicle inspection report in which, he opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. He was cross-examined by the defence
12. PW6-Dr.V.Balakrishna Naik deposed that on 19.02.2013, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries -
1) Traumatic amputation at the level of right side hip joint.
2) A fracture noted shaft of right femur.
3) A fracture at right pubic bone.
4. A fracture both bone of right leg.
5. A fracture both bone of left leg.
6. A laceration 4 x 2 x 1 cm in size at right ankle joint.
7. A laceration 5 x 2x1 cm in size over the left thigh.
All injuries caused by blunt object are antemortem in nature.
The approximate time of death is 12 to 18 hours prior to his postmortem examination.
Accordingly, he issued postmortem certificate, which was marked as Ex.P4 in which it was opined that the cause of death is “ hemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries.” He was cross-examined by the defence
13. PW7-Dr.M.Shair Khan deposed that on 18.02.2013, he examined PW1 and found the following injuries -
1) suspected fracture of leg bones.
Then he referred the patient to the SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati for x-ray and expert opinion.
X-ray left leg foot – there s no bony injury.
X-ray left leg – Fracture of let Libra bone.
Accordingly, he issued wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P5 in which it was opined that the injury No.1 is simple in nature, whereas injury No.2 is grievous in nature. He was cross-examined by the defence
14. PW8-A.T.Swamy, the Sub-Inspector of Police deposed that on 18.02.2013 at about 7.30 pm., he visited the Area Hospital, Srikalahsti and recorded the statement of PW1 and basing on it, he registered the case in
Cr.No.22/2013, u/Sec.304-A and 337 and issued Ex.P6 First Information Report to all concerned officials. Then, he visited the scene and found TATA Ace bearing NO.AP-03-Y-7838 and Bullet motorcycle bearing No.TN-09-A-4669 and further observed one lorry bearing No.RJ-19-GB-3563 loaded with sand and he further observed the scene of offence and a pool of blood and then he prepared
Ex.P7 rough sketch of the scene. Thereafter, he shifted the crime vehicle to the
Police station for safe custody. Thereafter, he left the scene of offence and went to the SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and secured injured person/PW1, examined him and recorded his statement. On 19.02.2013, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sampath Kumar at Area Hospital, Srikalahsti in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P2 report. During inquest, he examined LW2, PW2, PW3, LW5 and LW6 and recorded their statements. After the inquest he has sent the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer for autopsy. Thereafter, at the scene, he examined LW7 and recorded his statement.
On 23.02.2013, at about 10.00 am., two persons came to Police station and voluntarily confessed about the offence and produced records of crime vehicle and their driving licences. Then, he arrested both the accused and produced them
before the court for judicial remand. On 26.03.2013, he received MVI report and
postmortem report and also wound certificate from its competent. After completion of investigation on all aspects, he filed the charge sheet in this case.
He was cross-examined by the defence
15. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A2 was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating prosecution evidence in question form in Telugu, for which he denied and reported that there is no defence evidence.
16. Heard the arguments of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel.
17. Now, the points that arose for determination are:
1) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the death of the deceased and injury to PW1?
2) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the identity of the accused/A2?
3) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the accused/A2 has droved or acted with the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner?
4) Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused/A2 u/Sec.304-A and 338 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of
the accused/A2 for the offence under Section 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of
Motor Vehicles Act, beyond the reasonable doubt?
18. Learned defence counsel had argued that, no eye witness is there, except PW1, and moreover PW2 and PW3 are interested witnesses. Learned defence counsel further argued that there is no fault on the part of the accused/A2, as PW1 and the deceased Sampath Kumar were themselves negligent as they have ridden the vehicle in drunken state and thereby the accident was caused. At last, learned defence counsel prayed the court to acquit the accused/A2.
19. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the identity of accused was established by the prosecution through PW1 and PW8, further rash and negligent act of the accused was also established through PW5 and PW8 though some minor variations are found in the investigation, but those could not shake the root cause of this grave offence.
20. In this case, PW1 is the eye witness and injured who was pillion rider with deceased on the fateful day. PW2 and PW3 are the hearsay witness who after knowing the incident has reached to the scene. PW4 is inquest witness.
PW5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW6 is the Doctor who has issued Ex.P4 i.e., postmortem certificate, PW7 is also the Doctor who has issued Ex.P5 wound certificate and PW8 is the Investigating Officer .
21. Point No.1:
The prosecution has examined PW6 i.e., the Doctor who has deposed in regard to the injuries to the deceased and further issued Ex.P4 i.e., postmortem report. No cross-examination was reported from the other side. Moreover, inquest was conducted in the presence of PW4 who has categorically stated of conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased by the Police officer.
Ex.P2 categorically states of findings and moreover, nothing was elucidated from
PW4 by the defence. Moreover, PW2 and PW3 has stated of deceased to be died because of the road accident and such facts are corroborated by Ex.P4 and Ex.P2.
Therefore, the death of the deceased is proved by the prosecution and moreover defence did not object to such fact at any stage.
22. So far as the wound certificate of PW1 is concerned, PW7 who rendered treatment to PW1 categorically stated that the injury No.1 is simple in nature and injury No.2 is grievous in nature, and the said fact was already stated by PW1 and moreover Ex.P5 i.e., wound certificate also supports the version of
PW7 as well as PW1. Therefore, there is no dispute by the defence in regard to
Ex.P5 and simply took defence that such injuries are possible if the person falls from height on his leg. But, such defence does not inspire the confidence of court.
Hence, it is not taken into consideration. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
23. Point No.2
In regard to the identity of the accused
Only PW1 was examined by the prosecution who has seen the driver of the crime vehicle on the alleged dated of accident and no independent witness was examined in this regard. Moreover, PW1’s evidence discloses about the identifying the driver i.e., A2, who was standing in the Court. In regard to the identification, no cross-examination or elucidation was made by the defence.
Other than this, no witness who can identify the accused was examined.
Moreover, the fact of PW1 seeing the driver of the accused is corroborated by
PW8 who stated that on 23.02.2013 at about 10.00 am., while he was present in the Police Station, two persons came to the Police station and voluntarily confessed about the offence in this case and produced the records of the crime vehicles. Then A1 and A2 were arrested. PW1’s evidence categorically states of the identity of the accused as the driver and no cross-examination was done to that effect in which such fact could be doubted and therefore, the identity of the accused is established by the prosecution.
24. Points 3 and 4: Both the points are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and for brevity.
In regard to rash or negligent act of the accused/A2
It is imperative to mention here about rash or negligent act. The section explicitly lays down that only that act which is so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the person safety of other shall be punishable. Thus, the section itself caves out the standard of criminal negligence intended to distinguish between those whose failure is culpable and those whose conduct although not up to the standard is not deserving of punishment. Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so dangerous and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen. It was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. The hazard must be of such a degree that the injury was most likely to be occasion thereby. The distinction between the rashness and negligence is that, while in the former the doer knows about the consequences, but in the latter, the doer is unaware of the consequences. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genius, of which, rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall but with a hope that they will not. Further, for criminal negligence, it must be shown to secure conviction that the act was done with the consciousness of risk that consequences of death were likely to flow therefrom and there was mens rea in the doing of the negligent act alleged against the accused. These propositions have been held in Dr. P.V.Desai Vs. State of Maharastra, 2013 (11) Scale 429
or AIR 2014 SC 795. Further, in 1968 71 Bombay LR 634 HC, also in
Prabhkaran Vs. State of Kerala, 2007 (14) SCC 269, also in Sundaram Pillia
in 1969 ACJ 430 by Hon’ble Madras High Court.
25. At this outset as discussed above, it has to be seen whether there was any rash or negligent act on the part of A2.
PW1 categorically stated that on 18.02.2013 during evening hours, he along with one Sampath Kumar i.e., deceased were going to Petrol bunk in their
Bullet motorcycle to fill the Petrol. The said Sampath Kumar hereinafter referred as deceased for the sake of convenience. When they reached near Srikalahsti
Railway Station, one TATA Ace Magic vehicle bearing No.AP-03-Y-7838 was stopped and suddenly its door was opened due to which their Bullet motorcycle hit the said vehicle and they fell on the road. At that time, a lorry bearing No.RJ- 19-GB-3563 came suddenly and the lorry ran over them, due to which, his left leg was fracture and ran over the deceased, due to which, his testicles were separated, sustained bleeding injury and the deceased died on the spot. PW1 further stated that the said accident was due to the sudden opening of the door of
TATA Vehicle by A2. Regarding to this statement, cross-examination was made in which a suggestion was made that done as there being movement of vehicles on the road, therefore, there is no possibility for stopping the vehicle in the middle of the road, but such suggestion was denied by the witness. In regard to this suggestion, it has to be seen from Ex.P7, whereby the vehicle is seen to have stopped on the road. The said suggestion itself leads to strengthen the prosecution version. It is not the case of the defence that the vehicle was stopped on the extreme left side of the road whereby the deceased and PW1 came in wrong way and the accident was occurred. The fact of stopping the vehicle on the road by A2 and suddenly its door being opened because of which the Bullet had hit the door which caused both riders to fell down is not creating any doubt.
26. Further, this fact is mere contrasted from the answer in the cross- examination that the right side door was opened and they were at a distance of around two hand gap from the crime vehicle. Therefore, it can be seen that the
Bullet vehicle was in the center of the road and the vehicle i.e., TATA Ace Magic stopped suddenly on the road and its driver i.e., A2 without seeing has opened the door because of which the accident occurred. Further, suggestion was made that they were in drunk state which was denied by PW1. If such is the defence then PW6 and PW7 the doctors who has examined deceased and PW1 on the same day would have stated such fact. But no such elucidation or any cross- examination was done by the defence. Moreover, the defence did not elucidate such fact from PW6 and PW7 or did not even put suggestions.
27. PW2’s evidence is not much useful to the prosecution as he is hearsay witness and his fact is only about directly rushing to the hospital after knowing the incident.
28. PW3 is also hearsay witness as he went to the scene after accident and on receiving the phone call and at the scene, he observed lorry parked on one side of the road and also observed a TATA Ace Magic Auto and at the place found pool of blood. Further he stated that both the drivers were not present at the scene.
29. PW5 the Motor Vehicle Inspector who has issued Ex.P3 statd that he inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. No elucidation was made which could doubt the version of PW5. It is also not the case of the defence that the vehicle was stopped at the middle of the road due to mechanical defects of the vehicle.
Moreover, Ex.P3 shows no mechanical defects were there.
30. PW8, the Investigation Officer went to the scene and found TATA Ace
Magic Auto bearing No.AP-03-Y-7838 facing towards western side i.e., Tirupati side, Bullet was fallen down to the side of the TATA Ace vehicle and noticed front portion of the motorcycle was damaged and further noticed a lorry bearing
No.RJ-19-GB-3563 loaded with sand was stationed facing towards western direction and further observed pool of blood.
31. From Ex.P7, rough sketch prepared by PW8, it can be seen that TATA
Ace vehicle was facing towards Tirupati side, whereas the Bullet was also on the same direction and the lorry was also moving on the same direction i.e., towards
Tirupati side. It is also not the case of the defence that two wheeler came on opposite direction at high speed and they themselves were unable to control their vehicle and dashed against the alleged crime vehicle.
32. In the present case, the facts which have been proved through PW1 is that the vehicle bearing No.AP-03-Y-7838 (TATA Ace Magic) in which A2 was the driver was stopped on the road and A2 has suddenly opened right side door i.e., driver seat door without observing the two wheeler which was coming behind the TATA Ace Magic vehicle had hit on the door because of which, they lost control and fell down and then within fraction of seconds, a lorry bearing
No.RJ-19-GB-3563 came and ran over PW1 and the deceased.
33. In this, we have to examine the rash or negligent attitude, if any, of
A2. It can be presumed that if a vehicle was moving on the road at a normal speed and is suddenly stopped then the vehicle coming to its back side was not be albel to control or stop and it might cause to accident.
34. The main causa causans in the accident has to be seen. It means that the immediate cause of the accident. In the present case, the incident had occurred because of A2 suddenly opening the door and that too on the road because of which two wheeler had hit on it. It is the duty caste upon the driver of the vehicle to stop it at a distance from the road and by giving proper indications, so that no inconvenience is caused to the on coming vehicles and it is also duty upon the driver to see whether any vehicle is coming before opening the door of the vehicle.
35. In the present case, both things were not followed and TATA Magic
Vehicle of A2 was on the road without taking proper precautions and A2 acted in such a way which caused inconvenience to the deceased and PW1 and thereby the two wheeler got dashed into the door of TATA Ace magic vehicle. As a result, the deceased and PW1 sustained injuries and the said Sampath Kumar i.e., deceased died on the spot.
36. It is well settled law that it is the quality and not quantity of witness that matters. Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act is clear on that issue.
Therefore, it can be seen from the proved facts that the very occurrence of the accident was nothing but an hasty act of A2 driver who stopped his vehicle on the middle of the road without taking due care and proper precautions and thereby further acted negligently by suddenly opening the door of the vehicle on the road because of which the accident occurred. Accordingly, both the points are answered.
37. Point No.5: Whether the prosecution is able to establish that accused/A2 failed to provide medical aid to the injured and to inform the police about the accident within 24 hours as required under Section 134(a) and (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, and committed an offence punishable under Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act beyond the reasonable doubt?
As per Section 134(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, it is the bounden duty of driver of motor vehicle involved in an accident to provide medical aid to the injured immediately. Herein case, the prosecution is able to establish that A2 is the driver of crime vehicle i.e., TATA Ace Magic Auto at the time of accident. In the said accident one person died and another person i.e., PW1 sustained bleeding injuries. So, it is evident that both i.e., deceased and PW1 were not in a position to move to the hospital from the place of accident. Nothing was elicited that accused had taken any steps or called 108 ambulance and provided medical aid to the deceased immediately. Therefore, the court has no hesitation to hold that the accused failed to provide medical aid to the deceased at the earliest point of time as required under Section 134(a) of Motor Vehicles Act.
38. It is also the bounden duty of A2 being the driver of crime vehicle to inform the nearest police about the accident within 24 hours as required under
Section 134(b) of Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence of PW8 who is the
Investigating Officer as well as the record discloses that A2 along with another accused were surrendered before PW8 on 23.02.2013 and after proper identification, PW8 arrested them and sent for remand. No explanation was afforded by accused even by way of suggestion for not informing the police about the accident, within the stipulated time. It is not the stand of accused that they were also sustained injuries in the said accident. Thus, the court finds no reason as to what prevented the accused to inform the police about the accident within 24 hours. Therefore, the court has no hesitation to hold that accused failed to inform the nearest police abut the accident as required under Section 134(b) of
Motor Vehicles Act.
39. In view of the facts and circumstances, and in the light of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has established the guilt of A2 for offence punishable under Section 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of Motor
Vehicles Act, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the prosecution.
40. In the result, A2 is found guilty for offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and accordingly, he is convicted u/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of November, 2018.
Sd/- Srikanth
Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Srikalahasti
When A2 is questioned about the sentence, he stated that he has family and he is the sole breadwinner of his family, if he is sentenced to imprisonment, his family would suffer a lot, and hence he pleaded mercy of the court.
Having heard both the accused and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the court is of the view that, it is not a fit case to apply provisions of Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. However, in view of the submissions of accused, the court is inclined to take balanced view in imposing sentence. In the result, A2 is found guilty for the offence u/Sec.304-A of IPC and u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and accordingly, he is convicted u/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C, and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of one months. A2 is further sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of one month. A2 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees FIVE HUNDRED only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of ONE MONTH for the offence Under Section 134 (a) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. A2 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees FIVE HUNDRED only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of ONE MONTH for the offence Under Section 134 (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.
The sentence imposed against A2 in both the offences i.e., Secs.304-A of
IPC and 338 of IPC shall run concurrently.
Total fine comes to Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand only).
No property is produced in this case. Hence no orders as to it.
No remand period of A2 to be set off u/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.,
The A2 is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he is having means to engage a legal counsel and he does not need legal aid. He is informed that he had right to avail free legal aid.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of November, 2018.
Sd/- Srikanth
Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Srikalahasti.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
witnesses examined
For Prosecution: For Defence:
P.W.1P.ManojNone
P.W.2P.Venkataiah
P.W.3P.Prabhu
P.W.4K.Prabhakar Reddy
P.W.5G.Venkateswara Prasad, the Motor Vehicle Inspector
P.W.6Dr.V.Balakrishna Naik
P.W.7Dr.M.Shairkhan
P.W.8A.T.Swamy, the Sub-Inspector of Police
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P.1Statement of PW1.
Ex.P.2Inquest report of deceased
Ex.P3Motor vehicle inspection report.
Ex.P4 Postmortem certificate.
Ex.P5Wound certificate of PW1
Ex.P6First Information report
Ex.P7Rough sketch of scene
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-
Id/- S.K., AJMFC., Srikalahasti // true copy //
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti.
Draft/Fair Judgment in C.C.No.60/2013
dated:23.11.2018 (Criminal Judgment)
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS :: SRIKALAHASTI
CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT
C.C. No.60 of 2013
Date of offence18/02/13
Date of filing18/02/13
Date of Arrest23/02/13
Date of Release23/02/13
Date of taken of file18/04/13
Date of apprehension (appearance)10/05/18
Date of commencement of trial 14/08/18
Date of close of trial 20/11/18
Date of Judgment23/11/18
Explanation for delayOwing to non service of summons and heavy pendency, the trial could not be commenced till 14/08/18.
ComplainantThe State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Srikalahasti I Town Police Station (Cr.No.22/2013)
Name and addresses of the Accused 1Arjun Ram Dewasi, aged about 31 years, S/o Menaram Devasi, Lamba Village, Bilara Taluk, Jodpur District, Rajasthan State, driver of TATA Company (18 wheelers), lorry bearing Reg.No.RJ-19-GB-3563.
2Thipparalla Shyamkumar, aged about 33 years, S/o T.Sambasivaiah,D.No.16-676,Venugopalapuram, Renigunta Town, driver of TATA ACE Mazic, bearing Reg.No.AP-03-Y-7838, caste by SC Mala.
In this case, on 10.05.2018, case against A1 was split-up by C.C.No.146/2018 as NBWs pending against him and the Police also filed special report stating that the whereabouts of A1 was not known and requested the court to grant time for execution of NBWs against A1. Hence, after splitting this case against A1, a new case number was allotted to him vide C.C.No.146/2018 and fresh NBWs against A1 was issued.
Nature of offenceunder Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and u/Sec.134 (a) & (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act
FindingA2 is found guilty
Sentence or order: In the result, A2 is found guilty for offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and u/Sec.134 (a) &
(b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act and accordingly, he is convicted u/Sec.255 (2) of Cr.P.C.and sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of one months. A2 is further sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code and fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five thousand only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of one month. A2 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees FIVE HUNDRED only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of ONE MONTH for the offence Under Section 134 (a) r/w 187 of M.V.Act. A2 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees FIVE HUNDRED only), in default, he shall suffer simple imprisonment for period of ONE MONTH for the offence Under Section 134 (b) r/w 187 of M.V.Act.
The sentence imposed against A2 in both the offences i.e., Secs.304-A of IPC and 338 of IPC shall run concurrently.
Total fine comes to Rs.6,500/- (Rupees Seven thousand only).
No property is produced in this case. Hence no orders as to it.
No remand period of A2 to be set off u/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C.,
The A2 is informed of his right to prefer an appeal against the Calendar and Judgment of this court. When he is asked about his means to prefer an appeal, he stated that he is having means to engage a legal counsel and he does not need legal aid. He is informed that he had right to avail free legal aid.
A2 had paid the fine amount of Rs.6,500/- (Rupees six thousand and five hundred only) on 23.11.2018 and the sentence of A2 has been suspended by this Court till 05.12.2018 as per orders in Crl.M.P.No. 4395 /2018,
dated 23.11.2018.
Sd/- Srikanth
Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Srikalahasti. // true copy //
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I
CLASS :: SRIKALAHASTI
Friday, the twenty-third (23rd ) day of November, 2018
C.C.No.60 of 2013 (Cr.No.22/2013 of Srikalahasti I Town Police Station) Between:
The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Sub Inspector
of Police, Srikalahasti I Town Police Station. .. Complainant
And:
1Arjun Ram Dewasi, aged about 31 years, S/o Menaram Devasi, Lamba Village, Bilara Taluk, Jodpur District, Rajasthan State, driver of TATA Company (18 wheelers), lorry bearing Reg.No.RJ-19-GB-3563.
2Thipparalla Shyamkumar, aged about 33 years, S/o T.Sambasivaiah,D.No.16-676,Venugopalapuram, Renigunta Town, driver of TATA ACE Mazic, bearing Reg.No.AP-03-Y-7838, caste by SC Mala.
In this case, on 10.05.2018, case against A1 was split-up by C.C.No.146/2018 as NBWs pending against him and the Police also filed special report stating that the whereabouts of A1 was not known and requested the court to grant time for execution of NBWs against A1. Hence, after splitting this case against A1, a new case number was allotted to him vide C.C.No.146/2018 and
.. Accused
fresh NBWs against A1 was issued.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Sec.363(1) Cr.P.C. and Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of practice
We received the gratis copy of judgment in the above case today.
Accused/A2 Counsel for the A2