THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2432 OF 2011
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2011 dated 18.11.2011 wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated 29.07.2011 in CC No.299 of 2010, on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarat Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.
3. The accusation against the petitioner was that on 20.12.2009 at about 1130 hours, PW1 gave a complaint to the police complaining that the petitioner being the driver of lorry bearing No.AHT 5439, near Ayyappaswamy Temple of Wyra, in a rash and negligent manner tried to over take another lorry and dashed APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 20 Y 5729 of Sathupalli Depot, due to which, one Page 2 of 6 Danthala Laxminarayana and the deceased Burra Naveen, who were travelling in the said bus, sustained grievous injuries over head and out of them Burra Naveen died while undergoing treatment. Accordingly, the police of Konijerla registered crime No.142 of 2009. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and was numbered as CC No.299 of 2010 before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, which Court, upon examination of the evidence available on record, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, confirmed the said findings.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case mainly contending that the findings of both the Courts below are made without proper appreciation of evidence, on presumptions and assumptions, erroneously based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are patrician in nature and deposed false to save RTC driver and that the Courts below failed to appreciate the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses and version of the police regarding the apprehension of the petitioner. Thus stating, it is requested to allow the present criminal revision case. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that Page 3 of 6 the findings of the Courts below are well reasoned findings and there is no necessity for interference of this Court.
5. Accident, involvement of crime vehicle and RTC bus in the accident, injuries to the deceased and his subsequent death are not in dispute. The main contention of the petitioner from the inception was that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. He stated that no identification parade was conducted. He relied upon the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the police version. PWs.1 to 3 stated that immediately after accident, the lorry went into the fields and accordingly, they chased the driver of the said lorry and caught hold him. However, the version of police was that on 23.12.2009 at about 1100 hours the petitioner surrendered before the Inspector of Police and admitted his guilt. Ex.P8 trip sheet shows the name of the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. In view of the above, though the police version is different, the version of PWs.1 to 3, who identified the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle, is fortified by the recitals of Ex.P8 stating that the petitioner was assigned with the duty of driving the crime lorry at the time of accident. In view of the above, non-conduction of the identification parade will not weaken the case of the prosecution and that the petitioner cannot escape from his liability. Page 4 of 6
6. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and inmate of the bus. PWs.2 and 3 are the driver and conductor respectively of the RTC bus. PWs.4 and 5 are also the inmates of the said bus. PW6 is the panch witness to crime details form under Ex.P2. PW7 is the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination over the body of deceased and gave Ex.P3 report opining that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the death of deceased occurred. PW8 is the investigating officer. During the course of investigation Ex.P7 Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report was collected by PW8, which disclosed that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.P7 also depicted the severity of the damages caused to the crime vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
7. PWs.1 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the accident and they, in one voice, have categorically explained the manner of accident and also the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner being the driver of crime vehicle stating that the petitioner tried to overtake another lorry and dashed the RTC bus on its right side and ran into fields. They also deposed that inspite of best efforts of PW2, who was the driver of RTC bus, the accident could not be prevented. They also deposed that the deceased sat beside the window and sustained injuries and was immediately shifted to the hospital with the help of other passengers. Page 5 of 6
8. The prosecution by examining PWs.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P8 could able to successfully prove the rash and negligent manner of the petitioner and his guilt in occurrence of accident resulting in death of one Burra Naveen. Though the petitioner denied his complicity by way of several contentions, he failed to substantiate the same by adducing any evidence on his behalf or eliciting any incriminating material from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to disbelieve their evidence. Further, there appears no need or necessity for the prosecution witnesses to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case by falsely deposing against him.
9. Taking into consideration the above factual matrix, the trial Court has rightly found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The appellate Court also concurred with the said findings. There are no presumptions or assumptions in the findings of both the Courts below. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings of both the Courts below are well considered ones and they are sustainable and the grounds urged by the petitioner do not warrant any interference of this Court so far as finding the guilt of the petitioner is concerned.
10. So far as the sentence of imprisonment, imposed against the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is Page 6 of 6 concerned, this Court feels that since from the inception of case i.e. from the year 2009 the petitioner is roaming around the Courts by facing mental agony and trauma and hence, this itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient view in his favour. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to decrease the period of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner to that of the period which he already undergone.
11. Except the above modification, this criminal revision case is dismissed in all other aspects. The bail bonds of the petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :06-10-2023 abb