THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.925 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case directed against the judgment dt.02.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2014, wherein and whereunder, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dt.27.05.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, R.R. District, in C.C. No.57 of 2013 against the accused.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No.57 of 2013, whereas the respondent is the State. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the C.C. before the trial Court.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgments, the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 304-A IPC, and Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 338 IPC. In default of payment of fine amounts, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each.
2 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.925 of 2015
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 08.12.2012, one Cherla Pochaiah (hereinafter referred to as "deceased") and his friend Vadde Rajesh (PW.2) were proceeding towards Shabad from Chevella on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-23-AG-3557 at about 5.00 p.m., and when they reached near Allawada gate, the accused, who was proceeding towards Chevalla from Shabad, drove the crime DCM vehicle bearing No.MH-04N-5713 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased and PW.2 were travelling from the opposite direction. As a result, the deceased, who was the rider of the motorcycle, received bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot, and the pillion rider (PW.2) received bleeding injuries on his right leg.
4. PW.1/Smt.CH. Vijaya, wife of the deceased, lodged the complaint/Ex.P1 with the police, Chevella. Thus, upon registering the crime and investigating the matter, the police filed a chargesheet against the accused, and the Trial Court took cognizance.
5. In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
3 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.925 of 2015
6. On appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the charged offences and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra.
7. Aggrieved thereof, the accused preferred the above criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and the learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is challenging the said judgments before this Court.
8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the complainant/State. Perused the record.
9. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that both the Courts below erred in convicting the accused for the charged offences without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It was further contended that the courts below failed to consider the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses produced on 4 RRN,J Crl. RC No.925 of 2015 behalf of the prosecution and that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, prayed to allow the revision case by setting aside the impugned judgments and acquit the revision petitioner.
10. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State had contended that the impugned judgments suffer no infirmity as they are well reasoned. He further contended that PW.2 is the injured eyewitness, who travelled along with the deceased as a pillion rider. He consistently deposed that the accused drove his crime DCM vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their motorcycle from the opposite direction. He further contended that PWs 1 to 7 also supported the prosecution case. The evidence of PW1 circumstantially corroborates the testimony of the eyewitness. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
11. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the accused is entitled for setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code?
5 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.925 of 2015
12. POINT:
PW.2 is the pillion rider, who is an eyewitness to the accident. His testimony plays a prime position in determining the case of the prosecution. There is credit-worthiness in the evidence of PW.2, as there is no reason to suggest that he would depose against the accused, had the accused not driven the DCM vehicle. PW.2 categorically and consistently deposed that the driver of the crime DCM vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from the opposite direction, due to which the deceased sustained grievous bleeding injuries and died on the spot, and he (PW.2) also received bleeding injuries on his right leg. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2, it is clear that the DCM vehicle came in high speed and hit their bike, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot and he received a fracture injury. Further, nothing is elicited in favour of the accused from the cross-examination of PW.2. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased in the accident and the receiving of injuries by PW.2 in this accident.
13. It is observed by the trial Court that Ex.P4/rough sketch clearly shows that the accused came in an opposite direction to the motorcycle of the deceased and dashed the same. This 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.925 of 2015 infers that the DCM vehicle came in the wrong direction. Had he not driven the vehicle in a wrong direction, the driver of the DCM might have avoided the danger of hitting the motorcycle. Thus, it was observed by the trial Court that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the DCM vehicle.
14. Coming to the evidence of PW.3/Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle and found damages and noted in Ex.P2/MVI report and opined that this accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects and he issued Ex.P2/MVI report.
15. The evidence of PW.6/Investigating Officer shows that he conducted the scene of offence panchanama, prepared the rough sketch of the scene and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referred the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW.5, the panch witness to the scene of offence and inquest, corroborated the testimony of PW.6. In the evidence of One Ganesh Singh PW.7, there are a lot of inconsistencies, and as such, his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
7 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.925 of 2015
16. Thus, having scrutinized the whole evidence borne by the record vide the testimony of PWs 1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to P9, and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Therefore, the concurrent findings arrived at, by both the courts below are on appreciation of the entire evidence in proper perspective. Accordingly, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned. But, with regard to the sentence, the offence took place on 08.12.2012, and almost 11 years have passed. During this period, the accused might have repented for what he did and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a certain period during investigation, trial and after conviction. In these circumstances and in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of the imprisonment to the period already undergone by the accused while maintaining the sentence of the fine amounts.
17. In the aforesaid circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six (06) months under Section 304-A and Section 338 of IPC imposed on the accused is modified to that of the period already undergone by him. The sentence of the fine amounts are not interfered with.
8 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.925 of 2015
18. With the above modification in the sentence of
imprisonment, the criminal revision case stands disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 20.10.2023 BDR