1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.747 OF 2009
ORDER:-
The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision
Petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.94 of
2008, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track
Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, challenging the
judgment, dated 29.04.2009, whereunder the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment
in C.C.No.359 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, but modified the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months into rigorous
imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section
304-A of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and confirming
the rest of the judgment.
2) The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will
hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for
the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the
Court below, according to the charge sheet filed by the police
2
pertaining to Crime No.57 of 2004 of Draksharama Police
Station, is as follows:
(i) Accused was resident of Kakinada. He was the driver
of crime R.T.C. Bus bearing No.A.P.9Z 5420 with valid driving
licence at the time of accident on 14.05.2004 at 6-30 P.M., near
Unduru Bridge. L.W.1-Penamallu Rama Suryanarayana Reddy is
resident of Bhimakrosupalem village of Ramachandrapuram
Mandal. He took the mango garden of Nallavaru, situated near
Jagannadhagiri on lease for the year 2004 and is residing there.
He is the injured-complainant. L.W.2-Chollangi Suribabu is the
direct witness. L.W.3-Penumallu Suryanarayana and L.W.4-
Penumallu Papireddy are the brother and father of one
Penumalla Gandhala Reddy (hereinafter will be referred as
"deceased") respectively. L.W.5-Tamadi Bandaru is the
Conductor of crime APSRTC Bus.
(ii) The deceased aged 35 years is the son of L.W.4 and
nephew to defacto-complainant. On 14.05.2004 the deceased
from his village came to L.W.1 to see the mango garden, which
was taken on lease by L.W.1 and the same evening L.W.1 by
taking the deceased nephew on his cycle as pillion rider was
going towards Bhimakrosupalem village. After crossing Unduru
3
Bridge, they proceeded further to some other distance to
Chaitanya godowns. Then, crime RTC bus driven by the
accused-driver came in high speed in a rash and negligent
manner without blowing horn and hit the cycle from its back at
6-30 P.M. Then both L.W.1 and the deceased fell on ground and
the deceased became unconscious. L.W.1 received contusion
injury on the right wrist and abrasion injury on the right foreleg.
L.W.2 witnessed the occurrence. Soon after the accident,
passengers in the bus at their own went away and the accused-
driver assisted by L.W.5, lifted the deceased and L.W.1 in the
same crime bus to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On
examination of the deceased, who was in unconscious stage, the
Doctor declared him as brought dead. Accused-driver after
admitting them in the hospital left the crime bus and escaped.
Basing on the death intimation of the deceased and a medico
legal case intimation and statement of L.W.1 received from
Police Outpost, Government General Hospital, Kakinada,
L.W.14-the Sub-Inspector of Police issued F.I.R. in Crime No.57
of 2004 under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. and investigated
into. He examined the scene of offence in the presence of
L.Ws.7 and 8, the mediators and got photographed the scene
4
with the help of the Photographer i.e., L.W.6 and conducted
inquest over the dead body of the deceased at mortuary shed of
Government General Hospital, Kakinada on 16.05.2004 in the
presence of L.Ws.3 and 4, blood relatives and L.Ws.9 and 10.
Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.
L.W.11, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, examined the crime
vehicle and opined that the accident was not caused due to any
mechanical defects of the vehicle. L.W.13, who conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the
cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to
multiple injuries. L.W.12, the Medical Officer, examined L.W.1
and issued wound certificate, opining that the injuries received
by him are simple in nature. During the course of investigation,
Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused-driver on
16.05.2004
when he surrendered himself in the police station and released him on bail. Hence, the charge sheet.
4) The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, took cognizance on file under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. On appearance of the accused and on furnishing copies of documents as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., accused was examined under Section 251 of 5 Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked and during the course of cross examination of P.W.1, Ex.D.1, relevant portion of Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement, was marked. After the closure of evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances, for which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.
6) The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and on consideration of the evidence available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. Felt aggrieved by the same, the 6 unsuccessful accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, which came to be dismissed on merits. Felt aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case, impugning the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.
7) Now in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008, suffers with any illegality, irregularity or impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the said judgment?
Point:-
8) Sri Raja Harsha, learned counsel, representing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that P.W.2, one of the eye witnesses, turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and P.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution and basing on the solitary evidence of P.W.1, the injured, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner and the 7 learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram also erroneously dismissed the appeal. There was no rash and negligent act proved against the revision petitioner, as such, Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.
9) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would submit that the Court below looking into the direct evidence and documentary evidence, rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly gave findings that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle and he hit the bicycle of injured and deceased and caused injuries to P.W.1 and caused death of deceased and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, rightly dismissed the appeal, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.
10) The case of the prosecution is that the accused being driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus on 14.05.2004 while P.W.1, the injured and the deceased were moving on the bicycle, driven the offending bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing 8 horn, at about 6-30 P.M., hit the bicycle, as a consequences of which, both of them fell down and the deceased succumbed to injures. So, according to the prosecution, the deceased was the pillion rider on the bicycle and P.W.1 was the rider of the bicycle.
11) To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Firstly, this Court would like to see as to whether the prosecution was able to prove before the Court below that accused was driver of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5420 at the time of accident in question. There is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the deceased, Gandala Reddy, is his nephew. About three years ago at 6-00 P.M. when he and deceased were returning from Jagannadagiri on cycle and when they reached Unduru Bridge, one RTC bus coming from the side of Kakinada, hit their cycle from its behind without blowing horn. He fell down on one side i.e., left side and the deceased fell down on the right side. At that time he was riding the cycle. He received injuries to his head and leg. Bus ran over the deceased. Deceased died instantaneously. He was shifted to the hospital by the driver of 9 the bus. Accused is the driver of the said bus. Police recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is his statement.
12) P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution. Prosecution cross examined him and he denied that he stated before police as in Ex.P.2.
13) P.W.3 is the Conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C. According to him, three years ago they left Kakinada at 5-30 P.M. to go to Kotipalli. Bus was being driven by accused. At 6-30 P.M. when they crossed Unduru Bridge, some passengers boarded the bus. After issued tickets to them, he was preparing Statistical Return (S.R.). Bus passed Unduru Bridge and it was going slowly. Accused-driver suddenly stopped the bus by applying breaks. Then both of them got down from the bus and found two persons going by a cycle fallen on the road with injuries. There are four or five passengers in the bus. They shifted the injured to the hospital. Prosecution sought to cross examine the witness and the Court below permitted and during the course of cross examination, he denied that he stated before police as in Ex.P.3.
14) Coming to the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer, during investigation accused-driver of the RTC bus 10 surrendered before him and he arrested him and verified the records and seized Statistical Return and ticket account records from the accused. Ex.P.17 is the said Statistical Return. He further testified that P.Ws.2 and 3 stated before him as in Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively. So, there is evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 10, investigating officer, to prove the fact that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident in question.
15) During cross examination of P.W.1, accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W.3, the Conductor, testified the fact that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle. Though he did not support the case of the prosecution with regard to the manner of the accident, which will hereinafter be discussed, but he categorically testified that accused was the driver. Even the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer, is not challenged in this regard. Accused himself during Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination put-forth a version that he was the driver of the bus on that particular day. He put-forth a different version that he found two persons with injuries on the road and he and Conductor took them to the hospital, but, he is implicated falsely. The defence of the 11 accused in this regard will be discussed hereinafter. So, it is crystal clear that the prosecution before the Court below was able to prove categorically that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of offence. Even Ex.P.17 Conductor's Statistical Return categorically proves that the accused was driving the vehicle on that day.
16) Now, the crucial point that has to be considered is as to whether accused was responsible for the death of deceased by hitting the bicycle of P.W.1 and the deceased when they were riding as rider and pillion rider. P.W.1 spoken to the manner of the accident as if the bus came behind its back and without blowing any horn, hit the bicycle. For obvious reason, P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution whose hostility is proved through the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer, who deposed that they stated as in Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively. So, insofar as direct evidence is concerned, there is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the bus driven by the accused came behind the cycle and hit, in consequence of which, he received injuries and the deceased died. Prosecution to prove the factum of accident examined P.W.4, the Photographer. Through him Exs.P.4 to P.7, Photographs, are 12 marked and further examined P.W.5, who was the mediator to the observation of the scene of offence. P.W.5 spoken about the observation of the scene of offence by the police where they noticed a Royal cycle with a wooden carrier on rear side and found two baskets to the cycle with fruits and dead body in a pool of blood, etc. He scribed Ex.P.8, panchanama. The evidence of P.W.5 is not impeached in anywhere. So, by virtue of evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the prosecution was able to prove the things that were found at the scene of offence after the accident. The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effect that he inspected the crime vehicle on 17.05.2004 at request of police and found that the accident occurred was not due any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. Ex.P.9 is the M.V.I. Report. P.W.9 is the inquest panchayatdar, who supported the case of the prosecution with regard to conduct of inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.12 is the inquestnama. P.W.10, the investigating officer, spoken about the investigation conducted by him in detail.
17) The case of the prosecution is that police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered it as F.I.R. in Crime No.57 of 2004 under Sections 304-A and 13 338 of I.P.C., which is Ex.P.15. P.W.10 spoken about his proceeding to the Government General Hospital, observation of the scene of offence, conducting inquest, preparation of rough sketch, forwarding the dead body to the postmortem examination and further examination of the witnesses and surrender of the accused, seizure of Ex.P.17 and getting examination of the offending vehicle by the M.V. Inspector, etc. During the cross examination nothing is elicited to shatter his testimony.
18) Admittedly, the direct evidence is that of the evidence of P.W.1 in this regard. For obvious reasons, P.W.3, the Conductor, did not support the case of the prosecution. His hostility is proved by the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating officer. So, the defence theory by virtue of exhibited hostile attitude of P.W.3 and by virtue of the version put-forth by the accused during Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination is that when the bus reached Unduru bridge, they found a crowd and then they stopped the bus and found two persons in serious condition and on humanitarian grounds they took them to the hospital to provide a treatment and later on the next day police came and intimated them that they would arrest him for which he 14 questioned them and they replied one person died in the hospital and for the purpose of insurance, they implicated him. This is the defence theory.
19) It is to be noticed that the contention of the accused before the Court below is that if really the accident was occurred when RTC bus was moving in speed, certainly there would have been scratch marks or the cycle would have been damaged. It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of P.W.3, the bus was moving in slow condition. It is to be noticed that one may drive the vehicle in a negligent manner without going in high speed and one may drive the vehicle in a speedy manner with proper care. So, speed is not the criteria to decide the rash and negligent act. In that view of the matter, there need not be any damage to the cycle of P.W.1 at the time of accident. Even otherwise, there appears to be a scratch mark to the body of the bus. Even otherwise, the defence of the accused before the Court below can be negatived with any amount of cogent evidence available in the form of Ex.P.17, Statistical Return. A look at Ex.P.17, Statistical Return, goes to belie the very evidence of P.W.3. There is no dispute that Ex.P.17 was seized from the possession of the accused when he surrendered. So, it 15 goes to reveal that Ex.P.17 contains self-explanatory version that on 14.05.2005 at 5-30 P.M. when the trip is from Kakinada to Kotipalli and at about 6-30 P.M. when bus reached Unduru village, the Conductor heard some sound of hitting to the bus. Then they stopped the bus and he and the driver found one person with injuries and another person by the side of the road. During the cross examination of P.W.10, the contents in Ex.P.17 are not at all disputed by the defence. So, it is the accused and P.W.3, who got a mention in Ex.P.17 that they heard sound of something hitting to the bus. So, by virtue of contents in Ex.P.17, the evidence of P.W.1 has full corroboration.
20) Apart from this, it is the accused and Conductor, who took injured and deceased to the hospital and Exs.P.13 and P.14 are the hospital intimation and death intimation wherein it was mentioned that deceased was alleged to have been hit by the bus near Unduru Bridge. So, the accident time was 6-30 P.M. on 14.05.2005. The deceased brought to dead at 8-20 P.M. So, virtually, there was no possibility for implicating the accused within a short span of time as if he hit the cycle. So, all these go to show that evidence of P.W.1 that the bus hit the 16 cycle has corroboration from the own document of accused and P.W.3 i.e., Ex.P.17.
21) If really the bus did not hit P.W.1 and deceased and for no fault of accused, P.W.1 and the deceased were lying with injuries, this Court is not able to understand how accused ventured to take them to the hospital. According to Ex.P.17, the route map is from Kakinada to Kotipalli. How accused and P.W.3 changed the route and came down to Kakinada is shrouded in mystery. So, their coming to Kakinada along with RTC bus and injured and deceased could only be possible when the bus hit the bicycle. Apart from this, there was no need or necessity for the accused to keep the offending vehicle at the Government Hospital and absconded from the hospital. If really on humanitarian grounds he brought the injured to the hospital, he would have left the hospital along with bus and P.W.3 instead of stationing the bus at the hospital. So, all these go to show that the accused having hit the bicycle brought the injured and the deceased to the hospital. The evidence available before the Court below clinchingly proves that the accident was occurred when the RTC bus hit the bicycle of P.W.1, on which P.W.1 was a rider and deceased was a pillion rider.
17
22) Coming to the rash and negligent act, accused did not offer any probable explanation as to how he could hit a bicycle going ahead of the RTC bus. On the other hand, his defence was evasive as if he found the injured lying on the road which is nothing but a false defence. Hence, the prosecution was able to prove that accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the accused.
23) Coming to the cause of death by virtue of the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and further evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the punch witnesses for the observation of the scene of offence and evidence of P.W.7, the inquest panchayatdar, it is crystal clear that P.W.1 and the deceased received injuries in the accident that was occurred. According to P.W.8, he found injuries on the body of P.W.1 and the injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P.11 is the wound certificate. According to P.W.7, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased appears to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Ex.P.10 is the postmortem examination report. So, the prosecution was able to prove further that due to negligent act of the accused, the deceased was succumbed to injuries. In my considered view, the 18 prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the Court below.
24) The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram as well as the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, rightly appreciated the evidence on record. Accused miserably failed to substantiate his contention that the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety.
25) Having regard to the above, I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008.
26) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
27) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against 19 the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.359 of 2004, dated 13.03.2008 and to report compliance to this Court.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 27.12.2022.
PGR 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.747 OF 2009 Date: 27.12.2022 PGR