HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.46 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner, who is a lorry driver was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC vide judgment in C.C.No.96 of 2005 dated 05.01.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, which is confirmed by the Sessions Judge at Adilabad vide judgment in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2006, dated 07.12.2006. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of guilt, present revision is filed by the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner, who was a lorry driver, drove his lorry on 31.10.2001 in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Laxettipet side and ran over the deceased while she was crossing the road. As a result, the deceased died while undergoing treatment on the very same day. The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2001 and having received the postmortem examination report that the cause of the death was due to head injury, charge sheet was 2 filed for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and also for the reason of there being no medical defects in the vehicle.
3. Learned Magistrate, having examined ten witnesses and marking relevant documents found that this petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing death of the person, who was crossing the road. Learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed sentence of one year. Learned Sessions Judge, having found that the Magistrate did not commit any error in coming to conclusion of guilt, confirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment for a period to eight months from one year.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that this is one case wherein the petitioner was wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. P.W.1 and P.W.5 were planted witnesses and the question of the witnesses P.Ws.1 who was at the bus stand and PW5 witnessing the driver of the lorry when he was sitting inside the hotel, according to their evidence, is highly improbable and 3 for the said reason, the petitioner has to be acquitted. Further, the deceased was in fact negligently crossing the road without even looking at the vehicles on the road, for which reason of her contributory negligence the accident had occurred. For the said reason also, the conviction has to be reversed.
5. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that both the Courts below had committed no error in finding the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. For the reason of causing death of the deceased by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the revision filed by the petitioner has to be dismissed.
6. As seen from the record, P.W.1 was the person who was sitting at the bus stand and P.W.5 was the owner of Tea Stall. The evidence of P.W.1 is that the lorry was driven in a zigzag manner and ran over the person, who was crossing the road. At a place like the bus stand, the buses would stop and also the people cross the road for catching the buses. It is for the drivers of the vehicles to be vigilant and drive cautiously at 4 such places where public moment is imminent. Places such as bus stops, markets and traffic signals, persons driving the vehicles should be vigilant since there would be moment of public and pedestrians tend to cross the roads at the said places.
7. In the instant case, the lorry was driven in a zig-zag manner and ran over the deceased who was crossing the road. Lorry went to a distance and stopped there and from there, petitioner allegedly fled the scene. The argument of the learned counsel that there was no opportunity for P.W.1 or P.W.5 to identify the driver, who was stranger and even according to the prosecution, he fled scene after committing the accident, cannot be accepted.
8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has a valid point that the petitioner/driver being a stranger and there being no test identification parade, the identification in the court becomes doubtful. However, in such cases, where there is an accident which was caused leading to a death or any stranger inflicting injuries to any person would have any 5 amount of impact on the mind of a person witnessing such accident or incident. Further, such incidents leave a lasting impact and persons identifying such strangers who were involved in such acts of either causing accidents leading to death or inflicting injuries to some other persons would not be easily faded away. For the said reason, I do not find any infirmity or suspicion in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 identifying the driver of the lorry who had driven the same in such a fashion causing death of the deceased.
9. In the said circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or impropriety in the orders passed by both the Courts below and accordingly, confirms the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. However, since the incident is of the year 2001 and 22 years have lapsed, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to six months.
10. The concerned Magistrate shall cause appearance of the petitioner and send him to prison to serve out the remaining 6 part of the sentence. Needless to say the imprisonment already undergone shall be given set off.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.01.2023 kvs 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2007 Dated: 18.01.2023 kvs