Sri.Y.Jaya Prasad., M.A.,LL.M.,

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT YELLENDU

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

Present: SRI Y. JAYA PRASAD, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellendu.

CC.No.199 of 2008

Between:-

State through Circle Inspector of Police, Tekulapally Police Station in crime No.63 of 2007. …Complainant A N D

Bhanoth Bhav Singh, S/o.Goliya, 47 years, Driver of RTC bus registration No.AP 10Z 3189, R/o.Laxmidevipally, Kothagudem, Khammam District. … Accused

Offence ::304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused :: Not guilty

Finding ::Not guilty

Sentence or Order ::In the result:- Accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. -* -

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 7.9.2015 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri.D.Anand, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration; till this day the Court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Circle Inspector of Police,

Tekulapally Police Station against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code in Crime No.63 of 2007.

2.In a nutshell prosecution case is to the following effect:

Accused-Banoth Bhav Singh was working as RTC bus driver in RTC Kothagudem

Depot. On 26-8-2007 he was on duty on bus registration No.AP 10Z 3189 plying between Kothagudem and Yellandu Towns. At about 4.40 P.M he started from Yellandu with passengers to go to Kothagudem. At 5.20 P.M the bus reached Tekulapally village after passengers got down at B-Colony the bus started again towards Kothagudem. After going to a little distance, a Tata Ace Van registration No.AP 36W 5326 gone in opposite 1 of 10 CC.199 of 2008 direction, both the vehicles being in high speed colluded head on, as a result Tata Ace

Van turned around and got badly damaged and the driver of Tata Ace Van got entangled in the Van in between the steering and his seat and died on the spot and all the passengers in the Tata Ace Van sustained severe injuries, while some of the passengers in the RTC bus also received injuries in the accident. So, accused himself filed First Information

Report, which was registered as Cr.No.63/2007, U/Secs.304-A and 337 Indian Penal

Code. All the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Yellandu from there to

Khammam. While undergoing treatment, the injured/passenger-Sd.Nawaz died in the hospital, so also Sd.Azeem also died while undergoing treatment. Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statement of LW.1, thereafter LW.36-T.Janardhan, Circle

Inspector of Police, examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 : Bhanoth Bhav

Singh, LW.2 : Md.Khaja Mohinuddin, LW.3 : M.Suvarna, LW.4 : G.Ramachandramma,

LW.5 : Guguloth Maroni, LW.6 : Medepally Sammaiah, LW.7 : Bandala Shankar,

LW.8 : Md.Amjad, LW.9 : Md.Pasha, LW.10 : Md.Anwar, LW.11 : Guguloth Devla,

LW.12 : Guguloth Narsimha Rao, LW.13 : Banoth Babu, LW.14 : Alvala Sreenivas and

LW.15 : Md.Mahamood Khan, got the scene of offence photographed by

LW.14–A.Srinivas and also examined and recorded the statements of

LW.16 : Sd.Maqdum, LW.17 : M.Khaleem, LW.18-Md.Yakub Pasha,

LW.19 : M.Sreedhar, LW.20 : Sd.Mahaboob, LW.21 : Patan Ravoof Khan,

LW.22 : Sd.Azmath, LW.23 : Sd.Khader and LW.24 : Sk.Mukthar, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation proceedings in the presence of

LW.26-G.Sakru, LW.27-G.Nageswara Rao. LW.25-Dr.S.Prabhudas conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased Nos.1 and 2, while LW.33-Dr.P.Padma conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3. Inspector of Police conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of

LW.28-Md.Anwar, LW.29-D.Sreenu, LW.30-A.Kranthi, LW.31-Md.Azeez Khan and

LW.32-Sk.Khalin. Thereafter LW.34-Dhanrajbajaj, Motor vehicles inspector inspected the crime vehicles and issued his report. On completion of investigation and after collecting postmortem examination report, motor vehicle inspector report and wound certificates, LW.37-A.Naresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code.

2 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

3.This Court taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337

Indian penal Code against the accused.

4.On issuance of summons, the accused made his appearance before this Court.

Copies of case papers were furnished to accused in compliance of under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he was explained charge sheet allegations, against him for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337

Indian Penal Code. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and opted trial.

6.In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 24 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.31. PW.1-G.Ramachandramma, eye witness, PW.2-Guguloth Maru, eye witness, PW.3-Guguloth Devla, eye witness, PW.4-G.Narasimha Rao, eye witness,

PW.5-B.Shankar, eye witness, PW.6-Md.Amzad, eye witness, PW.7-Md.Pasha, eye witness, PW.8-A.Srinivas, Photographer, PW.9-Md.Khaja Mohinuddin, eye witness,

PW.10-Banoth Babu, eye witness, PW.11-M.Sammaiah, eye witness, PW.12-Md.Anwar, eye witness, PW.13-Guguloth Nageswara Rao, Panch witness for crime details form,

PW.14-Md.Anwar, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.1,

PW.15-D.Sreenu, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased Nos.1 and 2,

PW.16-Sk.Khalin, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.3,

PW.17-Dr.S.Prabhudas, Civil Assistant Surgeon, PW.18-Sk.Mukthar, Photographer,

PW.19-M.Suvarna, eye witness, PW.20-Dr.P.Padma, Medical officer,

PW.21-J.Bikshamaiah, Investigation officer, PW.22-T.Janardhan, Circle Inspector of

Police, PW.23-A.Naresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police and PW.24-Dhanraj Bajaj,

Motor Vehicles Inspector.

Ex.P.1-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2,

Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Ex.P4-Photographs, Ex.P5- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10, Ex.P6-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11, Ex.P7-161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW.12, Ex.P8-Crime Details form, Ex.P9-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-

Sd.Irfan, Ex.P10-Inquest proceedings of D-1 and D-2-Sd.Nawaz, Ex.P11-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Hazeem, Ex.P12-Postmortem examination report of D-1,

Ex.P13-Postmortem examination report of D-2, Ex.P14-Wound certificate of M.Suvarna, 3 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

Ex.P15-Wound certificate of G.Ramachandramma, Ex.P16-Wound certificate of

Guguloth Maroni, Ex.P17-Wound certificate of Md.Amzad, Ex.P18-Wound certificate of

B.Shankar, Ex.P19-Wound Certificate of M.Sammaiah, Ex.P20-Wound certificate of

Md.Pasha, Ex.P21-Wound certificate of Md.Anwar, Ex.P22-Wound certificate of

Md.Mahamood, Ex.P23-Photographs, Ex.P24-Compact disk, Ex.P25-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.19, Ex.P26-Postmortem examination report of Sd.Azeem,

Ex.P27-First Information Report, Ex.P28-Scene of offence proceedings, Ex.P29-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Sd.Azeem, Ex.P30-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-Sk.Irfan and Ex.P31-Motor Vehicles Inspector report.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the entire incriminating material evidence on record against him.

Accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, but he has not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf, but marked the document i.e., Ex.D1-Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7. Case of the accused is of total denial and he never committed the offence. He is falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues seriously that, there is ample oral evidence of direct witnesses and also documentary evidence of original complaint (report), Postmortem examination reports, Motor Vehicles Inspector report, scene of offence and inquest panchanamas and wound certificates. All these documents having come into existence immediately after commission of the offence of accident, contain the facts testified by the witnesses. Eye witnesses identified the accused to be the driver of crime vehicle and drove it in rash and negligent manner. So, there is cogent, consistent, oral and documentary evidence which indicates that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. So, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per the law.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel argues seriously, let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence, to show that, the accused drove the RTC (Road Transport Corporation) bus, in rash and negligent manner. For that matter none of 4 of 10 CC.199 of 2008 the witnesses identified the accused to be the driver of crime RTC bus and there is no documentary evidence that, accused is the driver of the RTC bus. However, learned counsel while admitting presentation of the complaint soon after the accident claims that, it is an indication of innocence on part of accused. Even the said complaint discloses that, it is the deceased driver of Tata Ace Van drove in high speed and himself hit the Van against the RTC bus. Learned counsel further contended that the photographs which were exhibited disclose that, the RTC bus is on the extreme left side of the road, whereas the

Tata Ace Van admittedly after hitting the bus turn around. So, the fault is on part of driver of Tata Ace, but not accused even for a movement if admitted to be the drive of crime bus. The learned counsel argues further that, the accident happened when the bus reached only a little distance after it start from the request stop. Admittedly the accident place is within Tekulapally town. In such a distance the bus reaching high speed is highly impossible. Since, the TATA Ace Van itself hit the bus, moving slowly, the Van turned around, had the bus infact hit the Van, as claimed by prosecution, the Van would have been, crushed and leveled to ground. But, it does not happened because, the Van itself hit the bus. Moreover, there are no eye witnesses to the accident. Thus, learned counsel requested to record clean acquittal.

11. Now the sole point that arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution could prove the allegation against the accused for the

offence under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code beyond

all reasonable doubts or not?

12.In order to prove the allegation against the accused for the offence under

Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code, prosecution must prove the following facts with legal evidence,

1. Death of the persons in question (deceased Nos.1 to 3).

2. That, the deceased Nos.1 to 3 are died in the road traffic accident.

3. That, the accused was the driver of crime RTC bus and due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus, accident occurred and the injured who were travelling in crime RTC bus and Tata Ace vehicle sustained simple and grievous injuries.

13.In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced the following evidence.

14. Pws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 are the eye witnesses to the accident and some of them travelling in Tata Ace vehicle and remaining some of them in the RTC bus. Of these witnesses Pws.1 to 4 and 10 does not tell anything about the 5 of 10 CC.199 of 2008 accident or the accused. All of them stated that, police have not examined them and they do not know anything about the facts of this case. PW.1 tells that, at the time of accident she was going to Tekulapally in RTC bus from Yellandu, as the bus reached infront of

Mandal Praja Parishath office, Tekulapally it dashed against Tata Ace vehicle, due to sudden jerk she had sustained injuries. She could not identify the accused and further she stated that, she cannot tell how the accident had happened. In similar fashion all other witnesses though stated about the accident, but they have not stated how it had taken place and they have not identified accused. So, evidence of these witnesses is of no use to prove the allegations against the accused.

15. Then, PW.9 tells that, the accused happened to be driver of R.T.C bus, but due to negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle, who died on the spot the accident occured, whereas PW.5 tells that “ I did not see the driver of crime bus due to severe injuries, now I cannot identify even the accused. I cannot tell the registration number of crime bus. Bus driver drove the bus in high speed.” Here it is to be noted that, as per the testimony of witnesses and as admitted by the investigation officer, the accident happened within the town limits and by the time the bus reached the place of accident, the distance it traveled was only a little. So, the bus being driven in high speed cannot at the movement be taken to be true gracefully, on the face of it. In similar fashion, Pws.6 and 7 while giving vivid account of the circumstances of the accident, they deposed “I did not see the driver of crime bus and I did not see the accident. Now I cannot identify the accused.” Both of them admitted that, immediately after the accident they lost consciousness and they sat in the back side of the auto trolly. So, they witnessing the driver of crime bus is remote. In the same vain PWs.11 and 19 also have not stated anything against the accused and they affirmed that, they cannot identify the accused and they could not tell how the accident had happened. So, all these injured and eye witnesses have not testified anything attributable to the accused as to not only his driving the crime vehicle, but also his driving it in rash or negligent manner. So in proof of the ‘fact of accused driving the crime bus’ at the time of accident and moreover in high speed and causing the accident is concerned there is no proof.

16. PW.8 is the photographer. He testifies about his taking of photographs which is marked as Ex.P8 as to the scene of offence and dead body of deceased.

6 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

17. PW.13 is the mediator for holding of scene of offence observation proceedings.

He deposed to that effect. There is nothing on record to take exception to their version.

PW.14 is the mediator for inquest proceedings conducted over the dead body of deceased

No.1-Irfan under Ex.P9. PW.15 is the mediator for inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased No.2-Sd.Nawaz. PW.16 is the mediator for inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased No.3-Hazeem. He exhibits P11-Inquest proceedings. All these witnesses in one voice testified about the police holding of inquest panchanamas in their presence. Then, PW.17 deposed about holding of medico legal autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2-Sk.Irfan and Sd.Nawas and he exhibited P12 and

P13-Postmortem examination reports of D-1 and D-2 respectively. Then, PW.18 is another photographer. He has taken photographs of dead body of deceased Nos.1 and 2-Sd.Irfan and Nawaz. They are marked as Exs.P20 and P24 respectively.

PW.20 is another doctor. She conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3-Sd.Azeem under Ex.P26.

18. Then, comes the evidence of Pws.21 and 22-Investigation Officers, whose testimony is in the nature of compliance of legal formality of registration of the case, examination and recording the statements of Pws.1 to 19 and holding of scene of offence and inquest proceedings. The relevant facts elicited in the cross-examination of PW.21 are, according to him the place of accident is a request bus stop. At the time of accident, the bus was reaching the request bus stop and it was quite nearer to the bus stop. Further he admits that, accused himself has presented report alleging that, the driver of Tata Ace

Van was at fault.

19. Above all PW.21-Investigation Officer admits a suggestion by the counsel that, since the accident happened near request bus stop, the RTC bus may have been going with a slow pace. Thus, non-supporting of case of prosecution by eye witnesses, and the death of the driver of the other vehicle (TATA AICE) involved allegedly in head on collusion together with the admission by the investigation officer that, the crime bus may not have been giving in high speed at the time of accident, since there was a request bus stop and the crime bus had stopped there, all together indicates, that the accused did not drive the crime bus in high speed.

7 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

20. PW.23 is the other investigation officer. He laid charge sheet. Pws.23 and 24 admits that, the Tata Ace Van is a goods carrier, it shall not carrying passengers. So, thus viewed from any of the stand points the circumstances improbablise the prosecution allegation that, it is the accused had driven the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Van which is said to have gone in opposite direction. As already stated supra, none of the witnesses stated against the accused, identified him to be the driver of crime bus and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner. So, prosecution could not prove the allegations against the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal

Code.

21. In the result:- the accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 8th day of September, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

:: Appendix of evidence ::

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1-G.Ramachandramma, eye witness -None-

PW.2-Guguloth Maru, eye witness

PW.3-Guguloth Devla, eye witness

PW.4-G.Narasimha Rao, eye witness

PW.5-B.Shankar, eye witness

PW.6-Md.Amzad, eye witness

PW.7-Md.Pasha, eye witness

PW.8-A.Srinivas, Photographer

PW.9-Md.Khaja Mohinuddin, eye witness

PW.10-Banoth Babu, eye witness

PW.11-M.Sammaiah, eye witness

PW.12-Md.Anwar, eye witness

PW.13-Guguloth Nageswara Rao, Panch witness for crime details form

PW.14-Md.Anwar, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.1

PW.15-D.Sreenu, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased Nos.1 and 2

PW.16-Sk.Khalin, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.3 8 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

PW.17-Dr.S.Prabhudas, Civil Assistant Surgeon

PW.18-Sk.Mukthar, Photographer

PW.19-M.Suvarna, eye witness

PW.20-Dr.P.Padma, Medical officer

PW.21-J.Bikshamaiah, Investigation officer

PW.22-T.Janardhan, Circle Inspector of Police

PW.23-A.Naresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police

PW.24-Dhanraj Bajaj, Motor Vehicles Inspector

::Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 -Nil-

Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P4-Photographs

Ex.P5- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10

Ex.P6-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11

Ex.P7-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12

Ex.P8-Crime Details form

Ex.P9-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-Sd.Irfan

Ex.P10-Inquest proceedings of D-1 and D-2-Sd.Nawaz

Ex.P11-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Hazeem

Ex.P12-Postmortem examination report of D-1

Ex.P13-Postmortem examination report of D-2

Ex.P14-Wound certificate of M.Suvarna

Ex.P15-Wound certificate of G.Ramachandramma

Ex.P16-Wound certificate of Guguloth Maroni

Ex.P17-Wound certificate of Md.Amzad

Ex.P18-Wound certificate of B.Shankar

Ex.P19-Wound Certificate of M.Sammaiah

Ex.P20-Wound certificate of Md.Pasha

Ex.P21-Wound certificate of Md.Anwar

Ex.P22-Wound certificate of Md.Mahamood

Ex.P23-Photographs

Ex.P24-Compact disk

Ex.P25-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.19

Ex.P26-Postmortem examination report of Sd.Azeem

Ex.P27-First Information Report

Ex.P28-Scene of offence proceedings

Ex.P29-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Sd.Azeem 9 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

Ex.P30-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-Sk.Irfan

Ex.P31-Motor Vehicles Inspector report

:: Material objects marked for ::

-NIL -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

10 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT YELLENDU

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

Present: SRI Y. JAYA PRASAD, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellendu.

CC.No.199 of 2008

Between:-

State through Circle Inspector of Police, Tekulapally Police Station in crime No.63 of 2007. …Complainant A N D

Bhanoth Bhav Singh, S/o.Goliya, 47 years, Driver of RTC bus registration No.AP 10Z 3189, R/o.Laxmidevipally, Kothagudem, Khammam District. … Accused

Offence ::304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused :: Not guilty

Finding ::Not guilty

Sentence or Order ::In the result:- Accused is found not guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. -* -

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 7.9.2015 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri.D.Anand, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration; till this day the Court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Circle Inspector of Police,

Tekulapally Police Station against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code in Crime No.63 of 2007.

2.In a nutshell prosecution case is to the following effect:

Accused-Banoth Bhav Singh was working as RTC bus driver in RTC Kothagudem

Depot. On 26-8-2007 he was on duty on bus registration No.AP 10Z 3189 plying between Kothagudem and Yellandu Towns. At about 4.40 P.M he started from Yellandu with passengers to go to Kothagudem. At 5.20 P.M the bus reached Tekulapally village after passengers got down at B-Colony the bus started again towards Kothagudem. After going to a little distance, a Tata Ace Van registration No.AP 36W 5326 gone in opposite 1 of 10 CC.199 of 2008 direction, both the vehicles being in high speed colluded head on, as a result Tata Ace

Van turned around and got badly damaged and the driver of Tata Ace Van got entangled in the Van in between the steering and his seat and died on the spot and all the passengers in the Tata Ace Van sustained severe injuries, while some of the passengers in the RTC bus also received injuries in the accident. So, accused himself filed First Information

Report, which was registered as Cr.No.63/2007, U/Secs.304-A and 337 Indian Penal

Code. All the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Yellandu from there to

Khammam. While undergoing treatment, the injured/passenger-Sd.Nawaz died in the hospital, so also Sd.Azeem also died while undergoing treatment. Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statement of LW.1, thereafter LW.36-T.Janardhan, Circle

Inspector of Police, examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 : Bhanoth Bhav

Singh, LW.2 : Md.Khaja Mohinuddin, LW.3 : M.Suvarna, LW.4 : G.Ramachandramma,

LW.5 : Guguloth Maroni, LW.6 : Medepally Sammaiah, LW.7 : Bandala Shankar,

LW.8 : Md.Amjad, LW.9 : Md.Pasha, LW.10 : Md.Anwar, LW.11 : Guguloth Devla,

LW.12 : Guguloth Narsimha Rao, LW.13 : Banoth Babu, LW.14 : Alvala Sreenivas and

LW.15 : Md.Mahamood Khan, got the scene of offence photographed by

LW.14–A.Srinivas and also examined and recorded the statements of

LW.16 : Sd.Maqdum, LW.17 : M.Khaleem, LW.18-Md.Yakub Pasha,

LW.19 : M.Sreedhar, LW.20 : Sd.Mahaboob, LW.21 : Patan Ravoof Khan,

LW.22 : Sd.Azmath, LW.23 : Sd.Khader and LW.24 : Sk.Mukthar, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation proceedings in the presence of

LW.26-G.Sakru, LW.27-G.Nageswara Rao. LW.25-Dr.S.Prabhudas conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased Nos.1 and 2, while LW.33-Dr.P.Padma conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3. Inspector of Police conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased Nos.1 to 3 in the presence of

LW.28-Md.Anwar, LW.29-D.Sreenu, LW.30-A.Kranthi, LW.31-Md.Azeez Khan and

LW.32-Sk.Khalin. Thereafter LW.34-Dhanrajbajaj, Motor vehicles inspector inspected the crime vehicles and issued his report. On completion of investigation and after collecting postmortem examination report, motor vehicle inspector report and wound certificates, LW.37-A.Naresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code.

2 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

3.This Court taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337

Indian penal Code against the accused.

4.On issuance of summons, the accused made his appearance before this Court.

Copies of case papers were furnished to accused in compliance of under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he was explained charge sheet allegations, against him for the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337

Indian Penal Code. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and opted trial.

6.In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 24 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.31. PW.1-G.Ramachandramma, eye witness, PW.2-Guguloth Maru, eye witness, PW.3-Guguloth Devla, eye witness, PW.4-G.Narasimha Rao, eye witness,

PW.5-B.Shankar, eye witness, PW.6-Md.Amzad, eye witness, PW.7-Md.Pasha, eye witness, PW.8-A.Srinivas, Photographer, PW.9-Md.Khaja Mohinuddin, eye witness,

PW.10-Banoth Babu, eye witness, PW.11-M.Sammaiah, eye witness, PW.12-Md.Anwar, eye witness, PW.13-Guguloth Nageswara Rao, Panch witness for crime details form,

PW.14-Md.Anwar, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.1,

PW.15-D.Sreenu, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased Nos.1 and 2,

PW.16-Sk.Khalin, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.3,

PW.17-Dr.S.Prabhudas, Civil Assistant Surgeon, PW.18-Sk.Mukthar, Photographer,

PW.19-M.Suvarna, eye witness, PW.20-Dr.P.Padma, Medical officer,

PW.21-J.Bikshamaiah, Investigation officer, PW.22-T.Janardhan, Circle Inspector of

Police, PW.23-A.Naresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police and PW.24-Dhanraj Bajaj,

Motor Vehicles Inspector.

Ex.P.1-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2,

Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4, Ex.P4-Photographs, Ex.P5- 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10, Ex.P6-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11, Ex.P7-161 Cr.P.C. statement of

PW.12, Ex.P8-Crime Details form, Ex.P9-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-

Sd.Irfan, Ex.P10-Inquest proceedings of D-1 and D-2-Sd.Nawaz, Ex.P11-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Hazeem, Ex.P12-Postmortem examination report of D-1,

Ex.P13-Postmortem examination report of D-2, Ex.P14-Wound certificate of M.Suvarna, 3 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

Ex.P15-Wound certificate of G.Ramachandramma, Ex.P16-Wound certificate of

Guguloth Maroni, Ex.P17-Wound certificate of Md.Amzad, Ex.P18-Wound certificate of

B.Shankar, Ex.P19-Wound Certificate of M.Sammaiah, Ex.P20-Wound certificate of

Md.Pasha, Ex.P21-Wound certificate of Md.Anwar, Ex.P22-Wound certificate of

Md.Mahamood, Ex.P23-Photographs, Ex.P24-Compact disk, Ex.P25-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.19, Ex.P26-Postmortem examination report of Sd.Azeem,

Ex.P27-First Information Report, Ex.P28-Scene of offence proceedings, Ex.P29-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Sd.Azeem, Ex.P30-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-Sk.Irfan and Ex.P31-Motor Vehicles Inspector report.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the entire incriminating material evidence on record against him.

Accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, but he has not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf, but marked the document i.e., Ex.D1-Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7. Case of the accused is of total denial and he never committed the offence. He is falsely implicated in this case and he is innocent.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues seriously that, there is ample oral evidence of direct witnesses and also documentary evidence of original complaint (report), Postmortem examination reports, Motor Vehicles Inspector report, scene of offence and inquest panchanamas and wound certificates. All these documents having come into existence immediately after commission of the offence of accident, contain the facts testified by the witnesses. Eye witnesses identified the accused to be the driver of crime vehicle and drove it in rash and negligent manner. So, there is cogent, consistent, oral and documentary evidence which indicates that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. So, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per the law.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel argues seriously, let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence, to show that, the accused drove the RTC (Road Transport Corporation) bus, in rash and negligent manner. For that matter none of 4 of 10 CC.199 of 2008 the witnesses identified the accused to be the driver of crime RTC bus and there is no documentary evidence that, accused is the driver of the RTC bus. However, learned counsel while admitting presentation of the complaint soon after the accident claims that, it is an indication of innocence on part of accused. Even the said complaint discloses that, it is the deceased driver of Tata Ace Van drove in high speed and himself hit the Van against the RTC bus. Learned counsel further contended that the photographs which were exhibited disclose that, the RTC bus is on the extreme left side of the road, whereas the

Tata Ace Van admittedly after hitting the bus turn around. So, the fault is on part of driver of Tata Ace, but not accused even for a movement if admitted to be the drive of crime bus. The learned counsel argues further that, the accident happened when the bus reached only a little distance after it start from the request stop. Admittedly the accident place is within Tekulapally town. In such a distance the bus reaching high speed is highly impossible. Since, the TATA Ace Van itself hit the bus, moving slowly, the Van turned around, had the bus infact hit the Van, as claimed by prosecution, the Van would have been, crushed and leveled to ground. But, it does not happened because, the Van itself hit the bus. Moreover, there are no eye witnesses to the accident. Thus, learned counsel requested to record clean acquittal.

11. Now the sole point that arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution could prove the allegation against the accused for the

offence under sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code beyond

all reasonable doubts or not?

12.In order to prove the allegation against the accused for the offence under

Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code, prosecution must prove the following facts with legal evidence,

1. Death of the persons in question (deceased Nos.1 to 3).

2. That, the deceased Nos.1 to 3 are died in the road traffic accident.

3. That, the accused was the driver of crime RTC bus and due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus, accident occurred and the injured who were travelling in crime RTC bus and Tata Ace vehicle sustained simple and grievous injuries.

13.In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced the following evidence.

14. Pws.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 19 are the eye witnesses to the accident and some of them travelling in Tata Ace vehicle and remaining some of them in the RTC bus. Of these witnesses Pws.1 to 4 and 10 does not tell anything about the 5 of 10 CC.199 of 2008 accident or the accused. All of them stated that, police have not examined them and they do not know anything about the facts of this case. PW.1 tells that, at the time of accident she was going to Tekulapally in RTC bus from Yellandu, as the bus reached infront of

Mandal Praja Parishath office, Tekulapally it dashed against Tata Ace vehicle, due to sudden jerk she had sustained injuries. She could not identify the accused and further she stated that, she cannot tell how the accident had happened. In similar fashion all other witnesses though stated about the accident, but they have not stated how it had taken place and they have not identified accused. So, evidence of these witnesses is of no use to prove the allegations against the accused.

15. Then, PW.9 tells that, the accused happened to be driver of R.T.C bus, but due to negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace vehicle, who died on the spot the accident occured, whereas PW.5 tells that “ I did not see the driver of crime bus due to severe injuries, now I cannot identify even the accused. I cannot tell the registration number of crime bus. Bus driver drove the bus in high speed.” Here it is to be noted that, as per the testimony of witnesses and as admitted by the investigation officer, the accident happened within the town limits and by the time the bus reached the place of accident, the distance it traveled was only a little. So, the bus being driven in high speed cannot at the movement be taken to be true gracefully, on the face of it. In similar fashion, Pws.6 and 7 while giving vivid account of the circumstances of the accident, they deposed “I did not see the driver of crime bus and I did not see the accident. Now I cannot identify the accused.” Both of them admitted that, immediately after the accident they lost consciousness and they sat in the back side of the auto trolly. So, they witnessing the driver of crime bus is remote. In the same vain PWs.11 and 19 also have not stated anything against the accused and they affirmed that, they cannot identify the accused and they could not tell how the accident had happened. So, all these injured and eye witnesses have not testified anything attributable to the accused as to not only his driving the crime vehicle, but also his driving it in rash or negligent manner. So in proof of the ‘fact of accused driving the crime bus’ at the time of accident and moreover in high speed and causing the accident is concerned there is no proof.

16. PW.8 is the photographer. He testifies about his taking of photographs which is marked as Ex.P8 as to the scene of offence and dead body of deceased.

6 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

17. PW.13 is the mediator for holding of scene of offence observation proceedings.

He deposed to that effect. There is nothing on record to take exception to their version.

PW.14 is the mediator for inquest proceedings conducted over the dead body of deceased

No.1-Irfan under Ex.P9. PW.15 is the mediator for inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased No.2-Sd.Nawaz. PW.16 is the mediator for inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased No.3-Hazeem. He exhibits P11-Inquest proceedings. All these witnesses in one voice testified about the police holding of inquest panchanamas in their presence. Then, PW.17 deposed about holding of medico legal autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2-Sk.Irfan and Sd.Nawas and he exhibited P12 and

P13-Postmortem examination reports of D-1 and D-2 respectively. Then, PW.18 is another photographer. He has taken photographs of dead body of deceased Nos.1 and 2-Sd.Irfan and Nawaz. They are marked as Exs.P20 and P24 respectively.

PW.20 is another doctor. She conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3-Sd.Azeem under Ex.P26.

18. Then, comes the evidence of Pws.21 and 22-Investigation Officers, whose testimony is in the nature of compliance of legal formality of registration of the case, examination and recording the statements of Pws.1 to 19 and holding of scene of offence and inquest proceedings. The relevant facts elicited in the cross-examination of PW.21 are, according to him the place of accident is a request bus stop. At the time of accident, the bus was reaching the request bus stop and it was quite nearer to the bus stop. Further he admits that, accused himself has presented report alleging that, the driver of Tata Ace

Van was at fault.

19. Above all PW.21-Investigation Officer admits a suggestion by the counsel that, since the accident happened near request bus stop, the RTC bus may have been going with a slow pace. Thus, non-supporting of case of prosecution by eye witnesses, and the death of the driver of the other vehicle (TATA AICE) involved allegedly in head on collusion together with the admission by the investigation officer that, the crime bus may not have been giving in high speed at the time of accident, since there was a request bus stop and the crime bus had stopped there, all together indicates, that the accused did not drive the crime bus in high speed.

7 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

20. PW.23 is the other investigation officer. He laid charge sheet. Pws.23 and 24 admits that, the Tata Ace Van is a goods carrier, it shall not carrying passengers. So, thus viewed from any of the stand points the circumstances improbablise the prosecution allegation that, it is the accused had driven the RTC bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Van which is said to have gone in opposite direction. As already stated supra, none of the witnesses stated against the accused, identified him to be the driver of crime bus and he drove it in a rash and negligent manner. So, prosecution could not prove the allegations against the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal

Code.

21. In the result:- the accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 8th day of September, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

:: Appendix of evidence ::

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1-G.Ramachandramma, eye witness -None-

PW.2-Guguloth Maru, eye witness

PW.3-Guguloth Devla, eye witness

PW.4-G.Narasimha Rao, eye witness

PW.5-B.Shankar, eye witness

PW.6-Md.Amzad, eye witness

PW.7-Md.Pasha, eye witness

PW.8-A.Srinivas, Photographer

PW.9-Md.Khaja Mohinuddin, eye witness

PW.10-Banoth Babu, eye witness

PW.11-M.Sammaiah, eye witness

PW.12-Md.Anwar, eye witness

PW.13-Guguloth Nageswara Rao, Panch witness for crime details form

PW.14-Md.Anwar, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.1

PW.15-D.Sreenu, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased Nos.1 and 2

PW.16-Sk.Khalin, Panch witness for inquest panchanama of deceased No.3 8 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

PW.17-Dr.S.Prabhudas, Civil Assistant Surgeon

PW.18-Sk.Mukthar, Photographer

PW.19-M.Suvarna, eye witness

PW.20-Dr.P.Padma, Medical officer

PW.21-J.Bikshamaiah, Investigation officer

PW.22-T.Janardhan, Circle Inspector of Police

PW.23-A.Naresh Kumar, Circle Inspector of Police

PW.24-Dhanraj Bajaj, Motor Vehicles Inspector

::Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 -Nil-

Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P4-Photographs

Ex.P5- 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10

Ex.P6-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.11

Ex.P7-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12

Ex.P8-Crime Details form

Ex.P9-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-Sd.Irfan

Ex.P10-Inquest proceedings of D-1 and D-2-Sd.Nawaz

Ex.P11-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Hazeem

Ex.P12-Postmortem examination report of D-1

Ex.P13-Postmortem examination report of D-2

Ex.P14-Wound certificate of M.Suvarna

Ex.P15-Wound certificate of G.Ramachandramma

Ex.P16-Wound certificate of Guguloth Maroni

Ex.P17-Wound certificate of Md.Amzad

Ex.P18-Wound certificate of B.Shankar

Ex.P19-Wound Certificate of M.Sammaiah

Ex.P20-Wound certificate of Md.Pasha

Ex.P21-Wound certificate of Md.Anwar

Ex.P22-Wound certificate of Md.Mahamood

Ex.P23-Photographs

Ex.P24-Compact disk

Ex.P25-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.19

Ex.P26-Postmortem examination report of Sd.Azeem

Ex.P27-First Information Report

Ex.P28-Scene of offence proceedings

Ex.P29-Inquest proceedings of D-3-Sd.Azeem 9 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

Ex.P30-Inquest proceedings of deceased No.1-Sk.Irfan

Ex.P31-Motor Vehicles Inspector report

:: Material objects marked for ::

-NIL -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

10 of 10 CC.199 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT YELLENDU

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

Present: SRI Y. JAYA PRASAD, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellendu.

CC.No.158 of 2009

Between:-

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamepally Police Station in crime No.19 of 2009. …Complainant A N D

Md.Khasim, S/o.Abdul Azeez, Age: 61 years, Driver of lorry registration No.AP 26W 4853, Lorry driver, R/o.Sajithpura Village, Siddipeta Mandal of Medak District.

… Accused

Offence ::304-A Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused :: Not guilty

Finding ::Not guilty

Sentence or Order ::In the result:- Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. -* -

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 7.9.2015 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri.D.Anand, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration; till this day the Court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Kamepally Police Station against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A Indian

Penal Code in Crime No.19 of 2009.

2.In a nutshell prosecution case is to the following effect:

Deceased-Raju belongs to Tamil Nadu state. He was working as driller on a bore wells drilling machine of Guntoju Ravi Kumar. On 20.02.2009 without intimation and knowledge said Raju had taken Hero Honda Passion Motor cycle of said Ravi Kumar and went to Khammam. While he was coming back to Yellandu on the motor cycle at about 5.00 P.M, as he reached near goddess Peddamma temple, the crime lorry registration

No.AP 26W 4853 gone in opposite direction and hit the motor cycle, as a result, Mr.Raju 1 of 6 CC.158 of 2009 has fallen on the road with motor cycle and sustained severe head injury and also the injuries to his both lower limbs and died. Mr.G.Ravi Kumar presented report, which was registered as Cr.No.19/2009, U/Sec.304-A Indian Penal Code. Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 : G.Ravi Kumar, LW.2 : Kannaji, LW.3 : Sammal,

LW.4 : Chinna Swamy, LW.5 : C.Govinda Raju, LW.6 : G.Prabhakar,

LW.7 : V.Satyanarayana, LW.8 : K.Vidyasagar, LW.9 : Sk.Sona and LW.10 :

Sd.Goremiya, got the dead body photographed by LW.9-Sk.Sona. Then, he visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence observation proceedings in the presence of LW.11-P.Appa Rao and LW.12-Banoth Jamla. He also conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW.13-K.Laxman and

LW.14-G.Sanjeeva Reddy. LW.15-Dr.S.Prabhu das conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased. Then, LW.16-E.J.Jaya Kumar inspected the crime vehicle and furnished his report. On 4-3-2009, Sub-Inspector arrested the accused and sent him to

Court for remand. On completion of investigation and on receipt of postmortem examination report and motor vehicles inspector report, LW.19-L.Raghu, Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.304-A

Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court taken cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A Indian penal

Code against the accused.

4.On issuance of summons, the accused made his appearance before this Court.

Copies of documents were furnished to accused in compliance under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he was explained charge sheet allegations, for the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and opted trial.

6.In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.8. PW.1-V.Satyanarayana, eye witness, PW.2-B.Jamla, Panch witness for crime details form, PW.3-G.Ravi Kumar, Defacto-complainant, PW.4-G.Prabhakar, eye witness, PW.5-K.Laxman, Panch witness for inquest, PW.6-K.Vidyasagar, eye witness,

PW.7-A.M.Krishnamacharyulu, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and PW.8-J.Bixmaiah,

Sub-Inspector of Police.

2 of 6 CC.158 of 2009

Ex.P.1-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1, Ex.P2-Crime Details form, Ex.P3-Report,

Ex.P4-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P5-Inquest proceedings, Ex.P6-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6, Ex.P7-First Information Report and Ex.P8-Scene of offence observation proceedings.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the entire incriminating material evidence on record against him.

Accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, but he has not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Case of the accused is total denied and he never committed any offence. He was falsely framed in this case.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues seriously that there is ample oral evidence of direct witnesses and also documentary evidence of original complaint (report), Postmortem examination report, Motor Vehicles Inspector report, scene of offence and inquest panchanama. All these documents are having come into existence immediately after commission of the offence of accident, contains the facts whichever testified by the witnesses. So, there is cogent, consistent, oral and documentary evidence which indicates that the accused was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove it, in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. So, the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per the law.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel argues seriously that, there is no evidence at all much less legal evidence. None of the eye witnesses have identified the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. There is no mention in the statements of witnesses before the police that, they had seen the crime lorry at the time of accident and they could identify the accused, if they see him again. So, the very allegation for the offence under Section is hallowed and shallow, it is not consistent and convincing even against the alleged driver of the crime vehicle. So, there is no link between the accused and the crime vehicle and the accident. So, there is no evidence at all, for the offence alleged. Thus, learned counsel requested to record clean acquittal.

3 of 6 CC.158 of 2009

11. Now the sole point that arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution could prove the allegation against the accused for the

offence under section 304-A Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubts or not?

12.In order to prove the allegation against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code, prosecution must prove the following facts with legal evidence,

1. Death of the person in question

2. That, the deceased died in a road traffic accident.

3. That, the accused was the driver of crime lorry and due to the rash and negligent driving of accused the accident occurred, which resulted in death of deceased.

13.In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced the following evidence.

14.PWs.1, 4 and 6 are eye witnesses to the accident. PW.1 deposed that he cannot identify the accused. He had noticed the accident taken place on the road, but he could not tell how the accident had happened. So, he does not tell anything about the accused.

PW.4 is also an eye witness to the accident. He deposes that, he does not know the accused and he cannot identify him and he did not see him at any point of time. PW.6 is also an eye witness to the accident. He deposed that, he did not see any accident. He had never seen the accident and police had not examined him. All these witnesses are examined in cross at length by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, but to of no avail.

15. PW.2 is mediator for scene of offence observation proceedings. He deposed as to holding of scene of offence observation proceedings in his presence under Ex.P2.

So, no exception can be taken to his evidence. Thus, prosecution could establish holding of scene of offence observation proceedings through the evidence of PW.2. PW.3 is not an eye witness. But, he is the person under which the deceased was working at the time of accident, he was at his home in Yellandu, at the time of accident. On coming to know the accident, rushed to the place of accident and noticed the deceased died in lorry accident. He could not tell as to how the accident had happened. He presented Ex.P3- report.

16. PW.5 is the mediator. According to him about 5 or 6 years earlier to his deposing evidence, police had called him to Government Civil Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and he could notice the injuries over the dead body. Ex.P5 is inquest proceedings.

4 of 6 CC.158 of 2009

17. PW.7 is the investigation officer. His evidence is in the nature of compliance of legal formality of registration of the case and examination of PWs.1 to 4. But, here it is pertinent to note that, the eye witnesses on the strength of whose statements, this witness concluded his investigation that, the accused is responsible to the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. But, the very same witnesses resiled from their earlier statements and testified on oath before this Court that, they do not know anything about this case and not seen the accused driving crime vehicle. So, the testimony of PW.7 has fallen to insignificance.

18. Then, comes the evidence of PW.8. He is the other second investigation officer.

He conducted scene of offence observation proceedings and inquest proceedings over the dead body of deceased after registration of the case. Except that, he does not tell anything about the accused. So, prosecution could establish the death of the deceased in question.

But, there is no evidence that, the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident much less in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. So, the prosecution could not prove the allegation against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A Indian

Penal Code.

19. In the result:- Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 304-A Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 255 (1)

Cr.P.C. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 8th day of September, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

:: Appendix of evidence ::

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1-V.Satyanarayana, eye witness -None-

PW.2-B.Jamla, Panch witness for crime details form

PW.3-G.Ravi Kumar, Defacto- complainant

PW.4-G.Prabhakar, eye witness

PW.5-K.Laxman, Panch witness for inquest

PW.6-K.Vidyasagar, eye witness

PW.7-A.M.Krishnamacharyulu, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police 5 of 6 CC.158 of 2009

::Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 -Nil-

Ex.P2-Crime Details form

Ex.P3-Report

Ex.P4-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P5-Inquest proceedings

Ex.P6-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6

Ex.P7-First Information Report

Ex.P8-Scene of offence observation proceedings

:: Material objects marked for ::

-NIL -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

6 of 6 CC.158 of 2009

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT YELLENDU

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

Present: SRI Y. JAYA PRASAD, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Yellendu.

CC.No.206 of 2009

Between:-

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellandu Police Station in crime No.30 of 2009. …Complainant A N D

Chinnabba Dhananjaya, S/o.Krishnaiah, Age: 39 years, Lorry driver, R/o.H.No.28-10-20, K.N.Colony, Chitoor Town and District. … Accused

Offence ::304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code

Plea of accused :: Not guilty

Finding ::Not guilty

Sentence or Order ::In the result:- Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same U/Sec.255 (1) Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. -* -

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 31.8.2015 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri.P.Gopinadh, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration; till this day the Court delivered the following:-

-:: J U D G M E N T ::-

1. This case arises out of the charge-sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Yellandu Police Station against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code in Crime No.30 of 2009.

2.In a nutshell prosecution case is to the following effect:

On 14-2-2009 deceased-Samuel started from Ramachandra peta Village to go to his native village Ragaboinagudem in an auto registration No.AP 20V 9969, as the auto reached near open cast mine a lorry registration No.AP 03 X 136 gone in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner driven by the accused and hit the auto, as a result the deceased sustained severe bleeing injuries and he was shifted to Govt. Hospital,

Yellandu and while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to injuries. The other 1 of 6 CC.206 of 2009 injured survived. So, the deceased’s son D.Laxminarayana presented report which was registered as Cr.No.30/2009, U/Secs.304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code. Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 : D.Laxminarayana, LW.2 : Edju Mani,

LW.3 : Kanakam Shekar, LW.4 : Pogaku Anasurya and LW.5 : Kanakam Upendar, got the dead body photographed by LW.6-G.Narendar, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW.7-Kalloji Srinivas and LW.8-Pogula Veerababu,

LW.9-Dr.S.Prabhudas, conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased and LW.10-E.J.Jai Kumar inspected the crime vehicle and furnished his report.

Sub-Inspector arrested the accused and got him sent to Court for remand. On completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code.

3.This Court taken cognizance of the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian penal Code against the accused.

4.On issuance of summons, the accused made his appearance before this Court.

Copies of documents were furnished to accused in compliance of and under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and he was explained charge sheet allegations, against him for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal

Code. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and opted trial.

6.In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P.10. PW.1-D.Laxminarayana, Defacto-complainant, PW.2-E.Mani,

Circumstantial witness, PW.3-K.Shekar, injured and eye witness, PW.4-K.Upendar, eye witness, PW.5-K.Srinivas, Panch witness for inquest, PW.6-Y.Raja Rao, Head Constable,

PW.7-Dr.S.Prabhudas, Deputy Civil Surgeon, PW.8-Ch.Srinivasji, Sub-Inspector of

Police and PW.9-S.Sarangapani, Sub-Inspector of Police.

Ex.P.1-Report, Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3, Ex.P.3-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4, Ex.P4-Crime details form along with rough sketch, Ex.P5-Inquest proceedings, Ex.P6-Postmortem examination report, Ex.P7-Wound certificate,

Ex.P8-Wound certificate, Ex.P9-Wound certificate and Ex.P10-First information report.

2 of 6 CC.206 of 2009

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the entire incriminating material evidence on record against him.

Accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, but he has not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Case of the accused is total denied and he never committed any offence.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argues seriously that, there is ample oral evidence of direct witnesses and also documentary evidence of original complaint (report), Postmortem examination report, Motor Vehicles Inspector report, scene of offence and inquest panchanama and wound certificates of injured. All these documents having come into existence immediately after commission of the offence of accident indicate the facts whichever are testified by the witnesses. So, there is cogent, consistent, oral and documentary evidence which reflects that, the accused was driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident and he drove it in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. So, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor seeks to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per the law.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel argues seriously that there is no evidence at all much less legal evidence. None of the eye witnesses have identified the accused to be the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Even there is no mention in report as to the identity of the accused as the driver of crime lorry at the time of accident.

There is no mention in the statements of witnesses before the police that, they had seen the crime lorry at the time of accident and they could identify the accused, if they see him again. So, the very allegation for the offence under Section is hallowed and shallow, it is not consistent and heed even against the alleged driver of the crime vehicle. So, there is no link between the accused and the crime vehicle and the accident. So, there is no evidence at all for the offence alleged. Thus, learned counsel requested to record clean acquittal.

11. Now the sole point that arises for consideration is whether the

prosecution could prove the allegation against the accused for the

offence under sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code beyond all

reasonable doubts or not?

3 of 6 CC.206 of 2009

12.In order to prove the allegation against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code, prosecution must prove the following facts with legal evidence,

1. Death of the person in question

2. That, the deceased died in road traffic accident.

3. That, the accused was the driver of crime lorry and due to it’s being driven in rash and negligent manner the accident occurred, the injured sustained simple injuries. So, accused caused the accident.

13.In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced following evidence.

14.PWs.1 and 2 are sons of the deceased-Samuel. Both of the them are not eye witnesses to the accident. But, both of them testified about the death of their deceased father-Samuel in a road traffic accident. PWs.3 and 4 are eye witnesses to the accident.

They were travelling in the auto at the time of accident, infact both of them sustained injuries in the accident. Both these witnesses testified about the death of the deceased-

Mr.Samuel. But, they have not stated anything attributable to the accused. They even not, have identified the accused. Both these witnesses are examined in cross by learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor to a considerable length, but to of no avail.

15. PW.5 is the mediator for inquest and as well scene of offence observation proceedings. He deposes, about 6 or 7 years earlier to his deposing evidence, police had conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in his presence and there were injuries found over the dead body of deceased and that the deceased may have died in road traffic accident. Regarding scene of offence observation proceedings, he tells in the same lines that police had conducted scene of offence observation proceedings and drew a rough sketch which is Ex.P4-Crime details form. Ex.P5 is inquest proceedings.

16. PW.6 is one of the investigating Officer. He arrested the accused and sent him to

Court for remand. To that effect his evidence, is on record. PW.7 is the doctor.

His evidence is, on 15-2-2009 on the requisition made by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Yellandu, he had conducted medico legal autopsy over the dead body of deceased and found both internal and external injuries. So, he had issued Ex.P6-Postmortem examination report. That, the deceased-Samuel died due to hemorrhage shock, as a result 4 of 6 CC.206 of 2009 of liver rupture. He also stated that, he had examined K.Shankar, K.Upendar and

P.Anasurya and found simple injuries and issued Exs.P7, P8 and P9-Wound certificates.

Nothing material could be elicited in the cross-examination of PW.7.

17. PW.8 is investigating officer. His evidence is in the nature of compliance of legal formality of registration of the report, examination of Pws.1 to 6, holding of scene of offence observation proceedings and inquest proceedings. Then, he had handed over case dairy to PW.9 who got the crime vehicle examined by Motor Vehicle Inspector.

After conclusion of investigation and after collecting postmortem examination certificate,

M.V.I report and wound certificates, he laid charge sheet against the accused.

18. As stated supra, all the eye witnesses, have not supported prosecution's case and their cross-examination by prosecution could not yield any result for prosecution.

The evidence of investigation officer does not disclose anything attributable to the accused. So, viewed from any of the stand points, absolutely there is no evidence against the accused for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code. So, the prosecution could not prove the allegation for the offence U/Secs.304-A and 337 Indian Penal Code.

19. In the result:- Accused is found not guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under

Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. Bail bond of accused shall stand canceled.

Dictated to Copyist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 8th day of September, 2015.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

:: Appendix of evidence::

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1-D.Laxminarayana, Defacto-complainant-None-

PW.2-E.Mani, Circumstantial witness

PW.3-K.Shekar, injured and eye witness

PW.4-K.Upendar, eye witness

PW.5-K.Srinivas, Panch witness for inquest

PW.6-Y.Raja Rao, Head Constable

PW.7-Dr.S.Prabhudas, Deputy Civil Surgeon 5 of 6 CC.206 of 2009

PW.8-Ch.Srinivasji, Sub-Inspector of Police

PW.9-S.Sarangapani, Sub-Inspector of Police

::Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1-Report -Nil-

Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3

Ex.P.3-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P4-Crime details form along with rough sketch

Ex.P5-Inquest proceedings

Ex.P6-Postmortem examination report

Ex.P7-Wound certificate

Ex.P8-Wound certificate

Ex.P9-Wound certificate

Ex.P10-First information report

:: Material objects marked for ::

-NIL -

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLANDU.

6 of 6 CC.206 of 2009

TSBK030002702009

Presented on : 30-07-2009 Registered on : 01-09-2009 Decided on : 27-02-2017 Duration : 7 years, 6 months, 28 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.

(Presided Over by D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

CC/100389/2009

PS Bodu Through Police Station Officer PS-BODU 12 , PS Bodu VERSUS Mulkuri Sathireddy @ Jagganna and 4 Others 50 Yrs,AIKMS Secretary, Ro Bodu. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Asst.Public Prosecutor., Advocate for N.Mallikarjuna Rao appearing for Mulkuri Sathireddy @ Jagganna and 4 Others Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 188 of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

ORDER

Accused called present. Judgment pronounced in the open court.(VSO). In the result, Accused No.1,2,4 and 5 are found not guilty of the offence U/Sec.126 RP Act and 188 IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled. case against A3. abated died

Date : 27-02-2017 (D Keerthi Chandrika Reddy)

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Yellandu.