THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1582 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 dated 28.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2011 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC directing the sentences to run concurrently, awarded vide judgment dated 27.12.2010 in CC No.575 of 2008, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. None appeared on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. The facts that lead to institution of CC No.575 of 2008, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, succinctly, are that on the basis of complaint of PW1, the Page 2 of 5 police of Chaderghat registered Crime No.328 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') alleging that when PW1 went inside the police station of Chaderghat to complain the hazardous situation of hanging over of iron rod from Malakpet Railway Bridge, the petitioner, being the driver of bus bearing No.AP 22 U 9092, rammed on his car causing physical damage to rear side and also caused bleeding injuries to three police personnel viz. K.Bikshapathi, Raghavender and AVR Prasad. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner surrendered himself before the police. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid and was numbered as CC No.575 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The trial Court, after consideration of the entire evidence available on record in the form of PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P5, has found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide judgment in Crl.Appeal No.3 of 2011.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case contending that the findings of both the Courts below are made on assumptions and presumptions, without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective and the negligent act of PW1 parking his car in front of the police Page 3 of 5 station. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the findings of both the Courts below are well considered and reasoned ones and there is no need or necessity for interference by this Court.
5. PW1 is the de-facto complainant. PWs.2 and 3 are the injured eyewitnesses and home guards, who were attending the duty at Chaderghat Police Station at the crucial time of incident and they clearly narrated the misdeed of the petitioner in causing damage to the car of PW1 and injuries to themselves and AVR Prasad contending that while the bus was taking U turn, the incident had taken place. PW4 is the panch witness to the scene of offence. PW5 is the investigating officer. Perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clearly proves though the Chaderghat area is a busiest area, PW1 parked his car without causing any hindrance to the on-going public and at the time of accident, the traffic was very less since it was morning time.
6. PWs.2 and 3 have clearly identified the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. When the said evidence coupled with the fact that the petitioner voluntarily surrendered before PW5 on 27.09.2008 is scrutinized, the petitioner cannot deny his identity as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully shifted its Page 4 of 5 burden to the petitioner alleging that he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. When the petitioner denies his identity, since the crime vehicle is a college bus and there must be some record showing the assignment of duties to the drivers and accordingly, if the petitioner was not the driver of the crime vehicle, it is the duty of the petitioner or the management to give the particulars of the driver, who drove the crime vehicle at that time. But there was no such attempt either from the petitioner or from the management. This itself gives a presumption that the petitioner was the driver and hence, no efforts have been taken in this regard.
7. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 went in similar lines pointing out the liability of the petitioner in driving the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Evidence of PW4 clearly explained the scene of offence. The petitioner failed to elicit any incriminating material either by adducing evidence or by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. In that view of the matter, it can be safely held that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which he was charge-sheeted. Considering all these facts, both the Courts below have rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offence with which he was charge-sheeted. The said findings are well reasoned findings and they cannot be interfered with by this Court so far as they relate to finding guilt of the petitioner. Page 5 of 5
8. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2008 the petitioner has been roaming around the Courts for defending himself from the case by facing mental agony and trauma. This itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment imposed to the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the imprisonment he has already undergone.
9. Except the above modification in respect of period of sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, this criminal revision case in all other aspects is dismissed. The bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand cancelled. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand dismissed.
____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated:06-10-2023 abb