THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1169 OF 2011
ORDER :
This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short ' Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2008 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment against the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year vide judgment in CC No.37 of 2005 dated 28.05.2008 was confirmed.
2. Heard Ms.T.Manjula, legal aid counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarat Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.
3. The accusation against the petitioner is that on 16.06.2004 when one Gandham Ashok and his family members returning from Vijayawada to Mancherial in TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 28 U 9090, driven by Bhadari Ramakrishna @ Ramu, they reached outskirts of Wardhannapet Village and passed DC Thanda, the petitioner, being the driver-cum-owner of lorry bearing No.AP 5 T 5090 with coal load, came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the said TATA Sumo due to which Vangala Preethi, Gandham Rakesh, Narendula Krishna Kumari, Narendula Vishnu Priya, Gandham Swathi, Bhadri Page 2 of 6 Ramarksihna @ Ramu, Vangala Karunakar Swamy, Gandam Vijaya Kumari and Vangala Savithri were crushed in the vehicle and sustained severe injuries all over the body. When they were shifted to hospital, out of them, Bhadri Ramakrishna @ Ramu, Vangala Karunakar Swamy, Gandam Vijaya Kumari and Vangala Savithri succumbed due to injuries. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.86 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC against the petitioner was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet and the same was numbered as CC No.37 of 2005 and the learned trial Court, upon examination of evidence available on the record, in the form of PWs.1 to 22 and Exs.P1 to P31, found the petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC stating that since the punishment for the said offence, out of the offences alleged, is a major one, there was no need to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. The said findings were confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal vide judgment dated 27.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2008.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case contending that both the Courts below have not applied the maxim of res-ipsa-liquator Page 3 of 6 i.e. things speak for itself and that they failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in his favour in a proper perspective and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the TATA Sumo vehicle. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that findings of both the Court below are well considered and reasonable and they cannot be interfered by this Court and that the grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioner do not warrant any interference by this Court in view of the concurrent findings.
5. PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the injured, victims and eye witnesses to the accident, they clearly depicted the entire episode of their pilgrimage and accident during their return journey fastening the liability on the petitioner stating that due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle only the accident had taken place. Their sustaining injuries is proved through the evidence of PWs.9, 11, 12, 14 and 20, who issued Exs.P3 to P10 wound certificates explaining the nature and gravity of wounds, they sustained. PWs.16 to 18, who are the panch witnesses for the inquest conducted over the bodies of deceased and SI of Wardhannapet, deposed about the death of four persons in the accident. However, no doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead bodies of deceased was examined by the prosecution. Post-mortem reports of deceased i.e. Exs.P15 to P18 were marked Page 4 of 6 through PW18, disclosing the cause of death as multiple injuries in the road traffic accident.
6. There is no dispute regarding the accident and resultant death of four persons and injuries to remaining inmates of the victim vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle at the crucial time of accident. Evidence of PW21, Motor Vehicle Inspector, who issued Ex.P24, revealed that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The petitioner denied his liability contending that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. Though PWs.2 to 4 did not identify the petitioner as the driver of crime vehicle, PWs.1 and 6 have categorically identified the petitioner as the driver at the time of accident. Further PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have categorically stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle only the accident has taken place. Further, PW8, who is the cleaner, worked on the crime vehicle, also admitted the liability of the driver of the crime vehicle for occurrence of accident but he did not identify the petitioner as its driver. In that view of the matter, it can be presumed that being an employee under the petitioner, he tried to render his assistant to help the petitioner in getting acquittal. So, the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident is proved beyond reasonable doubt but the petitioner is denying that he is the driver of the said vehicle at the time Page 5 of 6 of accident. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that the driver of the victim vehicle was in intoxicated condition at the time of accident due to which the accident had taken place. But there is nothing on record to prove the above said fact as the doctors, who examined the body of deceased driver did not express any opinion regarding the recitals of alcohol in his body. Ex.P31 trip sheet clearly proved that the petitioner was assigned the duty of carrying the coal on the crime vehicle at the time of accident. It is the burden of the petitioner to cite the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident in his place against the assignment. In that view of the matter, by relying on the evidence on record, the prosecution could able to prove the identity of the petitioner as the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident.
7. Having contended several things denying his liability in the subject matter accident, the petitioner failed to substantiate the same with cogent and acceptable evidence and on the other hand, the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Keeping these facts in mind, the trial Court has rightly found the petitioner guilty for committing the subject matter accident resulting in death of four members and injuries to the remaining inmates of the victim car. The same were confirmed by the appellate Court. Findings of both the Courts below are quite Page 6 of 6 reasonable, made basing on the material available on record and hence, they cannot be interfered with by this Court.
8. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2004 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 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.
9. 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