THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.913 OF 2012
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 18.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar wherein the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') awarded against the petitioner vide judgment dated 24.08.2011 in CC No.222 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. None appeared on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri JC Francis.
3. Crime No.101 of 2008 was registered by the police, Karimnagar for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioner alleging that on 13.06.2008, while Nalumachu Venu Kumar was proceeding to his house on his TVS Champ bearing No.AP15 AH 4742, at 03.25 P.M., in front of Taj Baba Consultancy, the Page 2 of 5 petitioner being the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3529 of Sircilla Depot came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed him from back side due to which, said Venu Kumar sustained grievous injuries and succumbed in the transit to the hospital. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the same was numbered as CC No.222 of 2009, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar, upon examination of entire evidence available on record in the form of PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P8, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimnagar as per judgment dated 18.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2011.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision case contending that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective, failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and without there being any evidence to convict the petitioner. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that the findings of both the Courts below do not warrant any interference of this Court as they were made on scrupulous evaluation of entire evidence on record.
Page 3 of 5
5. PW1 is the wife of deceased, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint. PWs.2 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the accident. PW3 is the photographer who had taken photos under Ex.P3. PW4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who submitted Ex.P4 report opining that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. PW5 conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased under Ex.P5 opining that due to the multiple injuries sustained in the accident only, the deceased died. PW7 is the witness for inquest and crime details form. PWs.8 and 9 are the Investigating Officers.
6. The occurrence of accident and death of the deceased was not disputed by the petitioner. His contention is that the deceased drove his moped in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the road divider but there was no involvement of the crime vehicle. So far as the liability of the petitioner, the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 clearly established that due to the rash negligent driving of the petitioner only, the accident had taken place resulting in injuries to the deceased. The said fact was informed to PW1 over phone by PW6. Though PW2 turned hostile, evidence of PW6 remained constant to prove the guilt of the petitioner. Further, PW6 identified the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle. Though the petitioner contended that by taking money from the heirs of deceased, PW6 deposed false against the petitioner, the same is not proved by way of cogent and convincing Page 4 of 5 evidence by the petitioner. The said fact is far beyond the probabilities. Evidence of PW8 investigating officer discloses the voluntarily surrender of the petitioner admitting his misdeed of committing the accident. Form 54 also showed the petitioner was assigned the duty on the crime vehicle on that particular day. Evidence of PW4 MVI clearly revealed that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Further, the crime vehicle hit the moped from backside and this fact clearly disclosed the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner as, if the rider of the moped drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, it can be within the vision of the driver of the vehicle behind it and he can easily control the situate.
7. Though the petitioner contended several aspects denying his liability in occurrence of accident, he failed to establish the same by adducing evidence. Furthermore, he did not examine anybody including himself for the reasons best known to him. Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material to disbelieve the prosecution case.
8. Taking into consideration all these facts, both the Courts below have rightly found guilty of the petitioner and the said findings are sustained and no interference is warranted. The grounds urged by Page 5 of 5 the petitioner do not invite this Court to interfere with the well considered findings of both the Courts below.
9. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2008 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 six months 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.
10. 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