THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.926 OF 2015
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case directed against the judgment dt.28.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2014, wherein and where under the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dt.11.08.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, R.R. District, in C.C. No.222 of 2012 against the accused.
2. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C. No.222 of 2012, whereas the respondent is the State. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the C.C. before the trial Court.
3. Vide the aforesaid judgments, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 304-A 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.500/-. In default of payment of the fine, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
2 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.926 of 2015
On 22.08.2012 at 6.00 a.m., one Adari Appala Naidu (hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), who was the father of PW.1/Adari Nagu, the complainant, left the house on a bicycle to Sardar Nagar to sell Idlis and when the deceased reached the bus stop of Sardar Nagar, the accused, who was the driver of crime DCM vehicle bearing No.HR-62A-0106 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle of the deceased. The tyre of the crime DCM vehicle ran over the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous bleeding injuries. Immediately, PWs 2, 3 and 6, the eyewitnesses who were there, shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Shadnagar, where the deceased, while undergoing treatment, died around 7.00 a.m.
4. PW.1 lodged the complaint with the police, Shabad. Thus, upon registering the crime and investigating into 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-6 got marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.
3 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.926 of 2015
6. On appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the charged offence 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 offence punishable under Section 304-A 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 petitioner that both the Courts below erred in convicting the accused for the charged offence 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.926 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 PWs 2, 3 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the accident, who categorically deposed that the accused was the driver of the crime DCM vehicle, who drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the bicycle of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 circumstantially corroborates that testimony of the eyewitness. Further, PW7 the panch witness to the scene of offence, corroborated the prosecution case. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision petition.
11. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the petitioner is entitled for setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code?
5 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.926 of 2015
12. POINT:
PWs 2, 3 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the accident.
They categorically and consistently deposed that the driver of the crime DCM vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle of the deceased from the backside, due to which the deceased fell down. The crime DCM vehicle ran over the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained grievous bleeding injuries. They further deposed that they saw the accused, and accordingly they could identify him. PW.2 identified the accused, who was present in the Court hall as the driver of the crime DCM vehicle.
13. The evidence of PW.2 consistently shows that he and the deceased used to go to Shabad to sell Idlis and on 22.08.2012 at 6.30 a.m., PW.2 and deceased started to go to Shabad. When they reached Sardarnagar, the deceased was proceeding in front of him (PW.2) at a distance of 10 meters at which time the crime DCM vehicle came at high speed and dashed the cycle of the deceased from the back side.The deceased fell down and the DCM vehicle, ran over the deceased causing severe bleeding injuries. PW.2 further deposed that he informed PW.1 about the accident. He also saw the driver of the crime DCM vehicle and he identified him. The evidence of PW.2 remained 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.926 of 2015 unchallenged by the accused as no specific suggestion was given to deny the same, except giving a general suggestion that he did not see the accident and the driver of the crime DCM vehicle is in no way connected to the accident which was denied by the PW.2.
14. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, he deposed that he is a resident of Sardarnagar and on the date of the accident, he was standing in front of his house, which is situated on the side of the road. So, it could be possible for PW.3 to witness the accident. He also deposed that he is familiar with the deceased as the deceased used to sell the Idlis at the village of PW.3 by coming on the cycle. In the cross-examination, he stated that he is an Ex-Sarpanch of his Village, Sardarnagar, and he further deposed that he brought the accused and kept him in a room only to protect the accused from being beaten by the villagers at the time of the accident. As seen from his evidence, PW.3 is not only a respectable person but also a responsible citizen, and there would not be any occasion for him to depose falsely against the accused. PW.3 had seen the accused.
15. Coming to the evidence of PW.6, he deposed that he is a resident of Sardarnagar. On the date of the accident in the 7 RRN,J Crl. RC No.926 of 2015 morning, he was doing a morning walk in front of the Pochammaguda temple at Sardarnagar, and he witnessed the accident. The categorical evidence of PW.6 was not challenged by the accused.
16. The evidence of PW.4/Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed that he inspected the vehicle No.HR-62-A-0106 found no damages and opined that this accident had not occurred due to mechanical defects, and he issued Ex.P2/MVI report.
17. The evidence of PW.5/Investigating Officer shows that he conducted the scene of offence panchanama, prepared the rough sketch of the scene, held an inquest over the dead body of the deceased and referred the dead body for post-mortem examination. PW.7, the panch witness to the scene of offence and inquest, corroborated the testimony of PW.5.
18. Thus, having scrutinized the whole evidence borne by the record vide the testimony of PWs 1 to 7 and Ex.P1 to P6, 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.
8 RRN,J
Crl. RC No.926 of 2015
Accordingly, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is concerned. But, with regard to the sentence, the offence took place on 22.08.2012, and almost 11 years have been 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.
19. In the aforesaid circumstances, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six (06) months under Section 304-A of IPC imposed on the accused is modified to that of the period already undergone by him. The sentence of the fine amount is not interfered with.
20. 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