THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2324 OF 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the Judgment of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in Crl.A.No.59 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, wherein the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, in C.C.No.389 of 2014 dated 04.01.2016 and sentenced the revision petitioner/Accused simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default, the revision petitioner/accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence under Section 338 IPC. The Appellate Court has erroneously considered Section 304-A of the IPC, when there is no finding in the trial Court with regard to the same. The revision petitioner/Accused prayed to set-aside the 2 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016 judgments of the Courts below and acquit him of the offence.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
2.1 On 24-11-2012 at 12.00 hours, the complainant and his family members were going to Srisailam. Meanwhile, at about 14.00 hours, when his vehicle reached the Mohabathnagar gate, one bus bearing No. AP 29 Z 0193, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, dashed their Car, and one Bhagyalaxmi received bleeding injuries and was admitted to the hospital. Based on the report of P.W.6/Complainant, P.W.15/ M. Gangadhar, CIP registered a case in Cr.No. 213 of 2012, for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The same was later transferred to P.W.11 for further investigation.
2.2 On 06.04.2013 P.W.11, upon receiving the information of Bhagyalaxmi's death, visited Gandhi Hospital, conducted the inquest panchnama and filed a memo altering the Section from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC.
3 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016
2.3 The prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 11 and marked Exs. P1 to P11 on its behalf. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.PC, where he denied the evidence and reported no defence witness.
2.4 The consideration before the trial court was whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution relied upon the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.6 to establish the rash and negligent driving of the accused. P.W.5, the conductor of the said bus, deposed that he did not observe how the accident occurred but confirmed that the accused was the bus driver on the date of the accident. The trial Court found the accused to be guilty of the offence under Section 338 IPC and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for Six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 08.09.2016, upheld the trial court's judgment and held that there was no need to interfere with the same, after considering the factual matrix.
4 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016
2.5 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had contended that there were major discrepancies in the timeline of the events as considered by both the trial court and the appellate court. He further contended that the trial court observed that P.W.3 was only a circumstantial witness, and it could be inferred that he was not travelling in the car which met with the accident. In contrast, the appellate court's finding in para 10 is that, P.W. 2 and P.W.3, both were travelling in the car along with the deceased. He further contended that the evidences of P.Ws. 5 and 6 are unreliable, owing to major factual discrepancies. He further contended that even as per the evidence of P.W.6/complainant, who is the driver of the car, deposed that the accident occurred when the bus collided with the car and dashed into its right side. However, there is no material or evidence to suggest that P.W.6 sustained any injuries, when he should be severely injured. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner further submitted that P.W.6 explained that he went to the police station to lodge a complaint. This contradiction 5 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016 has not been considered by either of the courts below. Accordingly, prayed to allow the criminal revision petition.
3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State had contended that the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned judgments.
4. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. Perused the record.
5. On bare perusal of the impugned order of the Appellate Court, it is observed that the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence against the revision petitioner/accused.
6. Point: Whether the Courts below are justified in convicting the revision petitioner?
7. Upon careful perusal of the record, especially the deposition of the witnesses, many discrepancies are noticed in their version which is to be looked into. P.W.1 6 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016 and P.W. 2, who are alleged eyewitnesses, stated that they were travelling in the car at the time of the accident. However, they could neither recollect the registration number of the bus nor could they identify the bus driver. With regards to the evidence of P.W. 3 the husband of the deceased, he deposed that his wife met with an accident near Maheshwaram. However, the trial court found that he happened to be a circumstantial witness, and his evidence is relevant only to corroborate the death of the deceased in the accident. As such, there is not much clarity as to the scene of offence. Further, P.W.4 who also witnessed the accident, did not support the case of the prosecution. It is to be noted that except P.W.6, who is the car driver, none of the above witnesses said that the bus driver was driving the bus at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner.
8. P.W. 5, the bus conductor deposed that when the bus reached near Mohabathnagar, the accident occurred. At that time, he was writing the SR book and thus did not observe how the accident occurred. Had the bus really 7 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016 been driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, he could not have been writing the SR book. This only proves that the driver of the bus did not drive the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
9. Moreover, P.W.6, in his cross-examination stated that six members were travelling in his car including himself. He deposed that the police enquired with him at the scene and subsequently, the car was taken to the police station. He further deposed that while he was going on the left side, the bus hit his car on the right side. It is also pertinent to note the statement of P.W. 6 that he had seen the bus driver only during the trial, after the accident. That there was no Test of Identification Parade conducted by the prosecution to verify the claim of the complainant, is a procedural lapse which the prosecution has not explained. Further, as seen from the evidence of P.W.9/MVI in the cross-examination, he stated that there are no scratches on the car, but goes on to say that he has not examined the car which was involved in the accident. This shows that there are major factual 8 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016 inconsistencies with regard to all the evidences adduced by the prosecution.
10. It is to be noted that the accident took place on 24.11.2012 at about 14.00 hours, whereas the death of the deceased Bhagyalaxmi took place on 06.04.2013. The prosecution has failed to examine the Medical Officer LW.12/Dr. Nagesh who treated the deceased for a period of three months to ascertain the possibility of medical negligence in causing the death of the deceased. However, the prosecution examined P.W.10 who deposed that she conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that if the patient is negligent in using the medicine, there is a possibility of the death of the person. She further opined that the head injuries are possible if a person falls from a height. So, the prosecution failed to produce any evidence that there is a nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries allegedly sustained in the accident. As the Appellate court did not observe anything with regard to the above, it 9 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016 can be safely stated that a reasonable doubt exists in favour of the revision petitioner.
11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below erred in convicting the revision petitioner and the judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The Judgment of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in Crl.A.No.59 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, wherein the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned XXVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Maheshwaram, in C.C.No.389 of 2014 dated 04.01.2016 are hereby set aside and the revision petitioner is acquitted of the offence under section 338 IPC. The fine amount paid by the revision petitioner shall be returned to him. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners shall stand cancelled.
10 RRN,J
Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous
applications, if any shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 20th day of October, 2023 BDR