1
Dr. GRR, J
crlrc_37_2018
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 37 OF 2018
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the judgment dated 19.12.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2017 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad confirming the sentence passed in C.C.No.537 of 2012 dated 27.09.2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the petitioner-accused was the driver of Vivekananda College mini bus bearing No. AP10W-2436 and on 29.08.2012 at 08:15 AM while carrying students to the college, he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit a motor cycle from behind, due to which the rider of the motor cycle and two (02) pillion riders fell down and the rider of the motor cycle sustained head injury and died on the spot and the pillion riders sustained injuries. Basing on the report given by the father of the deceased, the SI of Police of PS Kagaznagar Town registered a case vide Crime.No.114 of 2012 for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC.
2
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018
3. The case was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur and was tried by the said court. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, a simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) year for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and a simple imprisonment for six (06) months for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal. The appeal was heard by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad vide Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2017 and vide judgment dated 19.12.2017 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC but modifying the sentence and reducing it to one (01) year rigorous imprisonment. The lower appellate court observing that the single act of the accused resulted in multiple consequences for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC and that he could not be convicted for the said offences, set aside the same. 3
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred this revision contending that the father of the deceased was a retired employee in RTC. His complaint would not show that the bus ran over the deceased, the pillion riders, the brothers of the deceased subsequently improved their versions and stated that the bus ran over the head of the deceased. The independent witness, PW6 had not supported the case of the prosecution. No student who was travelling in the bus was examined to bring the truth on record regarding the accident. The scene of offence would show that there were houses and it was a busy traffic area, but, neither any of the persons residing in the said houses nor any of the passers-by were examined by the Investigating Officer. The genesis of the offence was screened and the story which suited the prosecution case was subsequently brought on record through PW3, who was an interested child witness. The MVI examined as PW12 only stated about inspecting the mini bus, but there was no evidence to show that the Hero Honda Shine Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 1S 5562 of the deceased was examined by him to find out whether there was any mechanical defect in the said motor cycle. The investigation was not fair to fix the liability against the petitioner- accused. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the revision petitioner-accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to set aside the judgments of the courts below.
4
Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018
6. There was no representation for the revision-petitioner though the matter was posted to several dates since the year 2018. As such on hearing the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
7. On perusal of the record, the complaint was given by the father of the deceased on 29.08.2012 at 9:00 AM after the accident to his son on the same day at 8:00 AM. As per his complaint, his second son by name Fasi-Ur- Raheman (deceased) aged 22 years was taking his younger sons Abdul Raheman aged 11 years and Jabi-Ur-Raheman aged 7 years on the motor cycle to drop them at school and on their way at 8:15 AM met with an accident by the Vivekananda College Bus bearing No. AP10W-2436 due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and his son Fasi-Ur-Raheman sustained severe head injury and died on the spot and his younger sons sustained injuries and were undergoing treatment in a private hospital. He also stated the name of the driver of the crime vehicle as Abdul Sajid, S/o. Mohd. Rasool, resident of Dada Nagar. Thus, the number of the crime vehicle, the details of the driver and the manner of the accident were stated by the complainant in his report marked as Ex.P1 immediately after the accident. The pillion riders, the brothers of the deceased, Abdul Raheman was examined as PW3 and Jabi-Ur-Raheman was examined as PW4. Both these witnesses stated about the manner of the accident, that on 29.08.2012 at 8:00 AM while 5 Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018 their elder brother was taking them on motor cycle to their school Vishwashanthi Techno High School at 8:15 AM and when they reached Lorry Chowrasta of Kagaznagar, Vivekananda Junior College bus bearing No. AP10W-2436 came from Rajiv Chowk in high speed and negligently and dashed against their motor cycle from behind due to which their elder brother died on the spot.
8. Though, these witnesses stated that the bus ran over the deceased, the same was not corroborated by the doctor who conducted the PME, examined as PW11. He only stated that the cause of death was due to head injury in a road traffic accident and not stated about the head being crushed. But, however, the same could not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses, examined as PWs 3 and 4. An independent witness was also examined as PW6 who was residing in the near-by house at the place of accident. He stated that on 29.08.2012 at 8:00 or 9:00 AM while he was present in his house, heard a big sound from the road. Immediately, he came out and noticed that an accident took place and a college bus pertaining to Vivekananda Junior College hit a motor cycle. He noticed three (03) persons on the motor cycle, one person died and the other two persons sustained injuries. He stated that he had not seen the driver of the bus, but came to know the name of the bus driver as Sajid. Thus, the evidence of this witness also corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 4, though he was declared as hostile as he had not identified the driver of 6 Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018 the bus or stated about witnessing the accident at the time of its occurrence. The non-examination of the students travelling in the bus was not fatal to the prosecution case when there is the evidence of the other witnesses.
9. Though, the trial court believed the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 with regard to the identity of the accused, the lower appellate court disbelieved their evidence with regard to the identity of the accused as it was elicited in their cross-examination that after the accident, the driver escaped from the scene and that they did not observe the driver and PW4 stated that he fell unconscious after the accident and regained consciousness in the hospital. But, however considering the evidence of the owner of the bus, examined as PW9 who stated in his chief-examination that it was the accused, who drove the bus, the lower appellate court believed the identity of the accused. PW9 in his cross- examination stated that he was at Hyderabad on the date of accident and he did not know as to who was the driver of the bus, as there were two (02) drivers on his bus, but the trial court as well as the lower appellate court rightly observed that the accused had not taken the defence that it was the second driver who drove the bus at the time of the accident, believed the identity of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. The name of the accused mentioned in the complaint which was filed immediately after the accident and the evidence of PW6 also stating about the name of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and the evidence of 7 Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018 PW9, the owner of the vehicle stating in his chief-examination that it was the accused who was the driver of the said bus at the time of the accident, adds credence to the prosecution version. There is no reason to consider otherwise. As the bus hit the motor cycle which was travelling in front of it and the eye- witnesses stated about the rash and negligent manner in which the crime vehicle hit their vehicle, the courts below rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
10. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings of the courts below in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. As the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial court was already reduced by the lower appellate court to one year rigorous imprisonment, this Court does not find any necessity to interfere with the same in this revision.
11. As such, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence as affirmed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2017 dated 19.12.2017.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J 21st November, 2022 nsk.