1
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS AT NAKREKAL.
PRESENT: Smt.V.SATYA LAKSHMI PRASANNA,
JUDICIALL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
NAKREKAL, Nalgonda DISTRICT.
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2018
C.C. NO. 436 OF 2013
Between:
Gaddaguti Bixmaiah S/o Ramaiah, Aged: 52 years, Occupation: Agriculture, R/o Munukuntla of Kattangur Mandal.
....Complainant.
And
Ithagoni Narshimha S/o Roshaiah, Aged: 42 years, Occupation: A.P.S.R.T.C. driver, R/o Kudabkshpally village of Marriguda Mandal.
…..Accused.
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned APPO for State and of Sri M.D. Hafeez, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record, having heard, stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T:
1.The case of prosecution in brief as set out in the charge sheet are that on 31122012 around 7.15 hours one
G. Bixmaiah along with some other passengers boarded one
R.T.C bus bearing no. AP10Z7832 at Munukuntla village in order to go to Nalgonda. When the bus driver while crossing
Nalgonda X road from National Highway No. 65 from Kattangur side towards Nalgonda side road around 8.15 hours, he dashed one lorry bearing No. WB23C5008 from right side of its body in a rash and negligent manner as a result the inmates of the bus namely G. Saibaba, G. Sathish, Ch. Anjamma and U. Raju 2
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 received severe bleedings injuries apart that some of the passengers in the bus also sustained injuries. Immediately they were shifted to Kamineni Hospital Narketpally, for treatment. On the same day a written report was lodged by said Bixam with
Police Kattangur around 10.00 hours seeking necessary action against accused.
2. Basing on the strength said report LW22 registered aforesaid crime initially under section 337 of Indian penal code and took up investigation by recording the statement of LW1 at
P.S. Thereafter, he visited the scene of offence at Nalgonda x road on National Highway No. 65 and after securing the presence of LWs 17 and 18 he prepared scene of fence panchanama and also drew the rough sketch of the scene. Later he visited Munukuntla village and recorded the statements of
LWs 15 and 16.
3. While the efforts to apprehend the driver of crime bus are still under progress the accused herein by name Ithagoni
Narshimha working as A.P.S.R.T.C. driver came to P.S and voluntarily Surrendered before LW23, and on interrogation he admitted his guilt of this offence. As such a notice under section 41 A Cr.P.C was issued directing him to produce sufficient sureties and later to appear before the court upon receipt of summons. Subsequently LW23 received medical certificates all injured persons namely LWs 3 to 7, 9 to 11 and 13 and 14 apart from the medical certificate LW12 from medical officers i.e., LWs 19 to 21. basing on such certificates the section of law i.e., 338 of Indian Penal Code has been added and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet before this court.
3
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013
4.Basing on the material papers filed along with the charge sheet, one of my learned predecessor has taken this case on file by taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 337and 338 of Indian Penal Code.
5.On making his appearance by accused, he was examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code after duly complying with Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the same and substance of accusation of offences punishable under section 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6.During course of trial, prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P.2 to P.14. The learned A.P.P.O. has given up the evidence of LWs16 to 19.
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under Section. 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, by explaining the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he pleaded false implication and reported no defence evidence.
8.Heard on both sides.
9. POINT
Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused of
the offences punishable under Section 337 and 338 of
Indian Penal Code, beyond reasonable doubt?
10.In order to bring home the charges leveled against accused, prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 16 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.14.
11.Since it is the case of prosecution that the accused being 4
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 deriver of crime vehicle bearing No. AP10Z7832 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at National Highway No. 65 while entering into Nalgonda road from Kattangur side, it is the foremost duty of the prosecution that the injured victims sustained and injuries on the date of alleged accident.
12.In ordered to prove this particular fact prosecution placed the reliance upon the testimony of PWs1 to 13 which are injured, eye witnesses to the accident.
13.Out of them PW1 is the defacto complainant and he said to have balded in crime bus along with his wife in order to go to
Nalgonda and he deposed that when the said person reached
Nalgonda junction near P.S Kattangur the driver of bus drove it in a negligent manner and without observing the lorry which was coming from other side there by dashed said lorry thus the front side of bus was damaged. He further deposed that in the said accident his son sustained injuries to this right shoulder and immediately all the injured who sustained injuries in the said accident were shifted to Kamineni hospital Narketpally for treatment. As per his testimony though he said to have present in the bus but his testimony is seldom in order to show whether he sustained any injuries in the said accident.
14.Apart from his testimony there is oral testimony PW1 to 13 who respectively deposed that in the said accident PW2 sustained grievous injury on his right shoulder and to his collar bone, PW3 sustained fracture injury on his right leg, PW4 sustained head injury, PW5 sustained fracture injury to his right shoulder apart form head injury and injury over her legs,
PW6 sustained head injury, injury to his left leg, PW7 sustained fracture injury on his right hand wrist, PW8 received 5
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 on his left shoulder, PW9 sustained fracture injury on his left hand shoulder, PW10 sustained fracture injury on his right side of fore head so also on his back, PW11 sustained injury on his both hands, so also on his right side ribs apart from bleeding injury on his left leg, PW12 sustained head injury. It is not disputed by the defence that aforesaid persons sustained injuries in the alleged accident but their version is that said accident was caused because of the negligent driving of lorry driver and nothing suggested to these witnesses to the affect that the subject injuries are sustained in any other manner.
15.However, by the efflux of time those injuries are not visible on the person of aforesaid injured witnesses, therefore, though the factum of sustaining injuries is not in dispute but in ordered to corroborate the oral testimony of injured witnesses regarding the place and nature of injuries the medical evidence plays a crucial role and there are three medical officers namely
LWs 19 to 21 who treated all the injured witnesses. However, the prosecution could not examined LWs 19 and 20 who treated LWs 2 to 11 and 13 and 14. But, regarding PW12 he was treated by PW16 who deposed before this court that on the date of accident PW12 came to his hospital at 1.00 P.M. for treatment out of 7 injuries first 5 injuries are grievous in nature where are injuries no 6 and 7 are simple in nature and age of aforesaid injuries are within 24 hours prior to his examination.
However, Pw12 when examined before this court specifically stated that he did not sustained any injuries much less he was treated by Pw16. Nevertheless, in respect of remaining injured their wound certificates are marked through investigating officer as the medical officers who treated them are not available to the 6
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 process of this court. Hence, strictly speaking there is no corroborative peace of medical evidence to substantiate the oral testimony of remaining injured witnesses but however, in respect of injuries sustained by Pws 2, 4, 6 and 7, the description of injures given buy them are corresponding to their injuries as mentioned in their wound certificates therefore, even in the absence of medical evidence in order to differentiate the injuries as simple or grievous I nature buy the fact remains is that when the prosecution has justifiable reason for not securing the present of medical officers there non examination would not be futile to the testimony of Pws 2 to 11 in order to show the fact that these persons sustained injuries ans got treated on 31122012 which is the date of accident. Under those circumstances even after thoughtful consideration of the oral testimony of Pws2 to 11 coupled with their wound certificates the court has no hesitation to conclude that all of them sustained some kind of injuries on the date of accident.
Hence, the prosecution could prove the first point successfully.
16.Now, the second point to be determined buy this court is whether the s accused himself drove the crime R.T.C bus on the date of said accident where in there is several causalities?.
17.In order to prover this fact prosecution] again projected the oral testimony of Pws1 to 11 and all of them categorically deposed that though they have not kind of acquaintance with the driver but, he used to attend his duties on the bus plying in their village therefore, they know him very well and on the date of accident also himself was on the wheels of crime bus.
18.Though the learned counsel for accused cross examined these witnesses on the ground that as the bus was crowded 7
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 with more passengers they have no opportunity even to see the face of driver while traveling in the bus. Be it noted that Pw4 specifically testified that he saw the accused while he was going to wards police station immediately after the accident and rest of the witnesses also denied the suggestion given by the learned counsel for the accused. It is undoubtedly true that prosecution and investigating agency failed to file any tribe sheet to show that the accused attended his duties on crime bus on the date of accident but it is also not in dispute that at no point of time the defence taken any file to the effect that the accused never work as R.T.C driver much less he never drove any bus in the route from Munukuntla to Nalgonda at any point of time. If such being the case when injured witnesses are independent persons who are not having any kind of animosity to falsely implicate the accused in the present case thought some body has caused accident to them and more over it is also not plausible even to assume that all the injured witnesses are planted at the scene. Therefore, being the victims the testimony of Pws2 to 11 inspires every conference in the mind of this court about their very presence at the scene of accident thus they would have scene the driver of crime vehicle even after the accident. Hence, on any count there is no iota of doubt in believing their testimony in order to established the fact the accused himself happened to be driver of crime vehicle.
19.Now the last point to be determined by this court is whether at the time of accident the accused acted either negligently or in rash manner which ultimately leads to causing causalities to number of persons?.
20.As per the case of prosecutions evincing from charge sheet 8
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 the accused did not follow the traffic signals and tried to cross the Nation Highway 65 at Nalgonda X roads. Undoubtedly
Pws 1 to 12 categorically deposed that the accused drove the crime bus in wrong route but none of them could explain what is the violation of the traffic rules committed by him. H0wever, while cross examining PW5 the learned counsel for accused suggested that in order to Nalgonda from Kattangur the bus has to go for 2. KM from Nakrekal and then they have to take a 'U' turn for going back Nalgonda as there is a divider for length of 2 KM. Said suggestion is admitted by the witnesses and for the better apprehension and aforesaid suggestion Ex.P.17 rough sketch would make it lucid that in order to go to road from
Eeduluru to Kattangur any vehicle ought not to have cross
N.H. No. 65 near P.S. Kattangur but they have to go forward towards Nakrekal and after some distance the vehicle again ought top have take a u turn in order to enter into N.H. No. 65 leads form Vijayawada to Hyderabad. But, in the case on hand
Ex.P17 rough sketch though not at all substance peace of evidence but if e\we apply the maxim of Resipsa loquitor the scene of accident itself shows that the accused tried to cross
N.H. No. 65 though the truth not meant for the vehicles proceeding from Eeduluru road and without observing the traffic he drove it without exercising proper care and cautious.
Such fact itself shows that the accused drover the crime vehicle in a rash manner thus, he himself is responsible for the injuries sustained by Pws 2 to 11 however, there is no medical evidence to describe the nature of injuries either as simple or grievous, but basing on the oral testimony injured witnesses, this court is going to believe that all the injured witnesses sustained simple 9
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013 injuries. Hence, after careful consideration of the oral testimony of Pws 1 to 17 Ex. P1 to 17, this court is of the view of that the accused himself drive the crime vehicle rash and negligent manner which ultimately become the proximate reason for the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses namely Pws 1 to 10 and 12.
In the result, accused found guilty of the offence punishable under section 337 of Indian Penal code and he is convicted of the same under section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancel.
Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer/P.A., corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of July, 2018.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NAKREKAL.
Heard the accused regarding sentence.
He submitted he is having old aged parents and having three minor children's therefore he has to look after their welfare since being the sole bread winner his entire family. Thus he prayed to take lenient view regarding the sentence.
Considering the submissions made by the accused and regard being had to the antecedent of the accused, which shows he is first time offender, this court feels that as the trial in the present case to considerable time and the accused already subjected to sufficient agony. thus, some quantum of fine would meet the ends of Justice. Accordingly accused is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/ in default he shall under go simple imprisonment for 15 days.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW.1Gaddaguti Bixmaiah complainant and eye witness.
PW.2Gaddapati SaibabuInjured and eye witness.
PW.3Gaddapati SathishInjured and eye witness.
PW.4Gaddapati GaneshInjured and eye witness.
PW.5Ch. AnjammaInjured and eye witness.
10
C.C.NO. 436 OF 2013
PW.6A. DurgaprasadInjured and eye witness.
PW.7 U.RajuInjured and eye witness.
PW.8M.MalleshInjured and eye witness.
PW.9N.NareshInjured and eye witness.
PW.10V. NareshInjured and eye witness.
PW.11U.ChandrashekarInjured and eye witness.
PW.12J.MamathaInjured and eye witness.
PW.13P.NareshEye witness
PW.14T. Vamshi Krishna Rao2nd I.O. and arrested the accused and filed charge sheet
PW.15K. SharmaIst I.O. and issued FIR
PW.16Dr. A. Srinivas RaoTreated the injured LWs. 8 to 10 and 14 treated the Lw12
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED: None
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION.
Ex.P.1: is complainant Ex.P.2: is wound certificate of Pw.2 Ex.P.3: is wound certificate of Pw.4 Ex.P.4: is wound certificate of Pw.7 Ex.P.5: is wound certificate of Pw.3 Ex.P.6: is wound certificate of Pw.5 Ex.P.7: is wound certificate of Lw.6 Ex.P.8: is wound certificate of Pw.6 Ex.P.9: is wound certificate of Pw.7 Ex.P.10: is wound certificate of Lw.9 Ex.P.11: is wound certificate of Pw.9 Ex.P.12: is wound certificate of Pw.10 Ex.P.13: is wound certificate of Pw.12
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED
Nil
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
NIL
FOR ACCUSED
Nil
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,
NAKREKAL.