GURUMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried for the offence of causing death of a Sub -Inspector of Police, Malakpet, by name, E. Madhava Reddy, on the intervening night of

(2.) /3.09.2007. 2. The case of the prosecution was that vehicle the Police, Malakpet at Gaddiannaram, commenced checking of vehicles from 11.30 p.m. on 02.09.2007, and two Sub -Inspectors, by names, Ch. Chandra Sekhar - PW -1 and E. Madhava Reddy - the deceased, were discharging the duties at that time. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Security, Cyberabad - PW -16, is said to have come to the checking party and informed them that a lorry bearing No.AP -09Y -7764 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it has dangerously overtook his vehicle; and that he asked them to intercept the said vehicle for checking. It was also stated that the deceased Madhava Reddy gave signal to stop, and pretending to be stopping the vehicle by taking to side, the driver of the vehicle had speeded it up. Madhava Reddy is said to have taken the lift from a motorcyclist - PW -3, available at that place, and chased the lorry. PW -1 is said ot have followed them on a four wheeler i.e. Rakshak vehicle. It was alleged that the lorry was moving in a high speed but had slowed down near Nampally at A1 signal point at about 01.40 am, on account of a Car taking 'U' turn. PW.3 is said to have come in front of the lorry with Madahva Reddy and when a signal was given to stop the vehicle, the driver is said to have dashed against Madhava Reddy and fled away. PW -1 who was following the vehicle, is stated to have found Madhava Reddy in a pool of blood and shifted him to Hospital, where Madhava Reddy declared dead at 11.20 a.m. on the next day while undergoing treatment.

(3.) SRI Y. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is hardly any consistency in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. He submits that while PW -16 stated in his evidence that he himself stopped the vehicle at the place of checking; PW -1 stated in Ex.P -1 that PW -16 informed them that the lorry has overtaken his vehicle and asked them to intercept it. He contends that if the lorry has already overtaken the vehicle of PW -16, the question of his asking PW -1 and the deceased to intercept the said vehicle, does not arise much less he could have stopped it. He further submits that inconsistency on the part of PW -16 is evident when, the witness stated that (a) he asked PW -1 and the deceased to stop the vehicle, (b) he himself stopped the vehicle, and (c) he passed on the message through VHF. Learned counsel further submits that when the checking is taking place, the entire staff would be at that place, so much so a Rakshak vehicle was available and the question of availing the services of a two wheeler to chase the lorry is unimaginable. He further submits that when the vehicle was allegedly passing through the middle of the city, crossing quite a large number of police stations, it would not have been difficult for them to intercept it and that too, where there is hardly any traffic on the road, at the midnight.