THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1110 of 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment dated 30.06.2009 in Crl.A.No.21 of 2008 passed by the learned Family-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda confirming the Judgment dated 23.01.2008 in C.C.No.576 of 2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Nalgonda.
2. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the revision petitioner/accused stating that he along with 28 others from Srikakulam District came to Narsinghbatla village of Nalgonda district for labour work and worked under a Contractor. On 22.05.2005, to return to their native villages they boarded a lorry bearing No. AP 24 T 7767 along with their luggage. When the vehicle reached near Motubavigudem village, the driver of the lorry namely Anyalapu Linga Swamy @ Lingaiah driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner with a high speed and lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which the lorry turned turtle and four persons died and others sustained injuries.
2
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 25 and marked Exs.P1 to P37.
4. The trial Court observed that the vehicle was driven in a high speed. The inmates of the lorry cautioned the driver to go slow, but he did not listen to them. There is a turning at the place of accident, as he could not slow down the vehicle it turned turtle twice and fell down, as a result of which 4 persons died and several persons sustained injuries. Many members witnessed the accident. Some of the passengers sat beside the driver in the cabin and some of them have boarded in the body of the lorry. The accident was occurred after travelling one Kilometer from Domalapally Village. The trial Court considering the evidence on record convicted accused and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to three months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and also sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court 3 dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present Criminal Revision Case is preferred.
5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused mainly contended that there are several material discrepancies, contradictions and omission in the evidence of witnesses, but they were not considered properly. As per the Cross- examination of P.Ws.1 to 7, most of them stated that they have boarded the lorry from back side, in that stage it is not possible to identify the driver of the vehicle. But, they identified the revision petitioner simply in the Court hall, as such their evidence is not sustainable. The P.Ws.8 to 10 are the injured and eye witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution and they did not identify the accused as driver. P.W.11 is the independent witness and he has also not identified the driver of the vehicle. The P.W.17 who is the cleaner of the lorry has also not supported the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of P.W.24, the owner of the Crime vehicle surrendered the Crime vehicle driver in his office, but the owner of the vehicle was not examined before the Court and did not seized the documents which are in possession of the petitioner like driving license, etc., and the photographs of the 4 crime vehicle were also not produced before the Court. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the first appellate Court.
6. Admittedly, accused was driving the lorry as on the date of accident. All the passengers intend to go to their native village. Their contention is that accused was driving the vehicle in high speed, as there was turning at the place of accident and the speed of the vehicle was not reduced, the vehicle was turned turtle. No doubt, four persons were died in the accident and others sustained injuries. Both the Courts gave concurrent finding that accused is guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and the trial Court imposed Rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year.
7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that there was a turning at the place of accident, but it was not noticed by both the Courts. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Raju Vs. State of Orissa, 1 in which it was held that accident was occurred about 15 years back and he was on bail for more than 8 years, as such he was directed to be released under Section 360 of Cr.P.C on 1 1995 Supp (2) SCC 385 5 probation of good conduct. In this case, the accident was occurred on 22.05.2005 and the trial Court disposed of the C.C.No.576 of 2005 on 23.01.2008 and the appeal was confirmed on 30.06.2009 and the present appeal was preferred in the year 2009, from the past 12 years it was pending before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued that the accused was aged about 26 years as on the date of accident. Both the Courts have not considered the fact that accident was occurred at turning. No doubt, the driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle with high speed. As a result, when there was turning the lorry turned turtle and four persons were died in the accident and others sustained injuries. He ought to have slowdown the vehicle at the turning, but he failed to do so. All the witnesses stated that they instructed him to reduce the speed. Even then, he has not reduced the speed, but in fact all of them intended to reach railway station to go to their native place, as the contract on which they came over from all the way to Srikakulam was completed. Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to modify the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the accused from Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to Simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, and further to 6 pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Total fine of Rs.15,000/-) for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days on each count.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed upholding the conviction passed by the first appellate Court, but the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision petitioner/accused is reduced from Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year to Simple imprisonment for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, and further to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Total fine of Rs.15,000/-) for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days on each count.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 06.04.2023 tri 7 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1110 of 2009 DATED: 06.04.2023 TRI