THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1130 OF 2012
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.06.2012 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2011 wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month directing the sentences to run concurrently by setting off the remand period if any undergone by the petitioner under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., passed vide judgment dated in CC No.120 of 2008 by the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. Page 2 of 5
3. Crime No.86 of 2006 on the file of Police Station Kodam for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC was registered on the complaint of PW1 dated 10.08.2006 alleging that when 50 persons were coming by walk from Navabpet to Laxmipur Village, after completion of grampanchayat elections, the petitioner being the rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 6 K 7781, along with two pillion riders came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed them from backside due to which, T.Rajavva, E.Rajavva, R.Rajanarsu, Medi Rajanna, E.Vijaya, E.Sathavva, P.Shantha, G.Lachanna, Suddala Naresh, G.Bhumaiah, J.Lachanna and others sustained simple and grievous injuries and fractures over their face, head, hands and other parts of body and later on 11.08.2006 out of the above injured persons, E.Rajavva succumbed to injuries in Government Hospital. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet vide CC No.120 of 2008 was laid before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nirmal, which Court, upon consideration of entire material available on record in the form of PWs.1 to 15 and Exs.P1 to P22, found the petitioner guilty of the offences with which he was charge-sheeted, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case mainly contending Page 3 of 5 that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that involvement of the crime vehicle was not deposed by any of the witnesses, they erred in relying on the evidence of PW.1, who is not an eye witness to the accident instead of treating PWs.2 to 8 and 11 as eye witnesses. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the findings of both the Courts below are made after careful appreciation of the entire evidence available on record and the said findings cannot be interfered with by this Court.
5. PW.1 is the de-facto complainant, he being the auto driver travelling through the road where accident had taken place, on seeing the injured, he shifted them to the hospital and complained the same to the police. PWs.2 to 8 and 11 are the eyewitnesses cum injured and they clearly explained the entire episode and events prior to, during and after the accident fastening the liability on the petitioner for occurrence of accident, injuries to some of them and death of Rajavva stating that due to his rash, negligent and zigzag manner riding with two pillion riders, lost control over the bike and dashed them. The evidence of PWs.13 and 14 coupled with Exs.P6 to 20, injury certificates issued by them and also Ex.P5 post-mortem report issued by PW13 clearly proved the injuries sustained by PWs.2 to 8 and 11 as well as the petitioner in the accident and death of Rajavva due to hemorrhagic shock as a result of head injury in the accident.
Page 4 of 5
6. PW9 is the witness for panchanama under Ex.P2 proving the occurrence of accident in the place of offence. PW12 is the motor vehicle inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle and opined under Ex.P4 that there were no mechanical defects leading to the accident. With the above cogent, convincing and unshaken evidence of prosecution, the identity of the petitioner and his liability in committing the accident due to his rash and negligent riding of crime vehicle, riding along with two pillion riders against the rules, resulting in injuries to PWs.2 to 8 and 11 and death of Rajavva is established without any doubt. The cross-examination of above witnesses by the petitioner did not gain any support to suspect or disbelieve their evidence or any previous enmity compelling them to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case. By taking all these facts and evidence adduced on record into consideration, the trial Court has found guilty of the petitioner, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The learned appellate Court, finding reasons for convicting the petitioner, has confirmed the said findings. Findings of both the Courts below, so far they relate to finding guilt of the petitioner are concerned, they are well reasoned and were made after careful appreciation of evidence available on record and hence, they cannot be found fault with by this Court. Page 5 of 5
7. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2006 i.e. for the last about fifteen years the petitioner has been roaming around the Courts for defending himself by facing mental agony and trauma. This itself is a sufficient ground to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of simple imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year imposed to the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the period of imprisonment which he has already undergone while upholding the fine amount awarded to him by the trial Court.
8. Except the above modification in respect of period of sentence of simple imprisonment, 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 : 08-09-2023 abb