THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.999 OF 2012
ORDER :
This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and also to suffer imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 3/181 of MV Act and in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional imprisonment each for a period of four months for both the counts, directing the sentences to run one after another consequently, awarded vide judgment dated 25.01.2012 in CC No.122 of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, was confirmed.
2. Heard Sri Prem Sai, learned counsel representing Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarat Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.
Page 2 of 5
3. The main accusation against the petitioner is that on the fateful day of unforeseen incident of accident, while returning to his house, the petitioner drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it due to which, the said tractor turned turtle resulting in death of J.Ramesh i.e. the brother of PW1 and injuries to PW3, who are travelling along with the petitioner on the said tractor. Accordingly, on the complaint of PW1, the police registered Crime No.124 of 2006 and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid and numbered as CC No.122 of 2007 and the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, upon consideration of evidence available on record, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar in Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2012.
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 failed to appreciate the evidence in a right perspective, circumstances surrounded the scene of offence, relied upon the uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of prosecution witnesses and made on surmises and conjectures. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that findings of both the Courts below are well considered and there is no reason or occasion for this Court to interfere with the same.
Page 3 of 5
5. This Court perused the judgments of both the Courts below. The petitioner did not deny the accident, involvement of crime vehicle and resultant death of deceased but he vehemently contended that there was no negligence on his part. Evidence of PW6, MVI, also goes against the petitioner's defence stating under Ex.P4 report that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle at the time of accident and that the breaks of the vehicle were intact. The petitioner failed to explain the compelling conditions beyond his control for occurrence of accident. He did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove his innocence.
6. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and brother of the deceased, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint and stated that he was present in the fields at the time of accident and upon hearing the sound, he rushed to the spot and saw the tractor turning turtle and his brother found dead on the spot due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. PW3 is the injured and eye witness to the accident he too blamed the petitioner for his rash and negligent driving causing injuries to him and death of the deceased due to his falling beneath the tractor. PW4 is a panch witness for inquest of the deceased under Ex.P2 and observed abrasions over the chest part of the deceased. PW5 is another panch witness for scene of offence under Ex.P3. PWs.7 and 8 are the investigating officers. The petitioner voluntarily surrendered himself before PW8 and hence, there is no Page 4 of 5 question of his identity as the driver of the crime vehicle at the crucial time. The prosecution evidence is found to be corroborative and there is no inconsistency in it and hence, there is no necessity for disbelieving the same. Furthermore, there is no whisper regarding previous enmity or otherwise between the petitioner and the prosecution witnesses or the deceased to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case.
7. The petitioner failed to produce his driving licence and hence, it seems, without having valid driving licence he drove the crime vehicle resulting in accident and hence, he is liable to be punished under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner did not elicit any incriminating material from the cross-examination of prosecution witness and further, he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence, as stated supra. When all the above discussed facts, circumstances and evidence on record is meticulously scrutinized, the guilt of the petitioner is glaring, proving his rash and negligent driving at the time of accident resulting in death of deceased and injuries to himself and also PW3.
8. Taking into consideration all these facts, both the Courts below have correctly found the petitioner guilty for his rash and negligent driving resulting in death of the deceased and injuries to PW3. The said findings are reasonable and sustained. The grounds Page 5 of 5 urged by the petitioner do not have any force inviting this Court to interfere with the same.
9. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, from the year 2006 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 imprisonment 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 for all counts.
10. Except the above modification in respect of period of sentence of 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 : 20-09-2023 Abb