THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1051 OF 2012
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri S.Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2 The petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Khammam, in C.C.No.134 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 14.12.2010, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court concurring with the findings of the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 29.06.2012, modified the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year imposed by the trial Court 2 to that of three months, while maintaining the fine amount. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused. 3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 12.01.2008 one Rudra Venkataiah boarded the auto bearing No.A.P.20 V 5108 at Mudigonda centre to go to Khammam. The driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and applied sudden brakes on seeing buffaloes on the road, resulting which, the auto turned turtle due to which Venkataiah sustained severe injuries to his right leg and was shifted to New Life Hospital, Khammam, where he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioner is the driver of the said auto. Hence the charge. 4 The evidence of P.W.1 is circumstantial. P.W.2 is the direct witness to the accident. His evidence is that on that date he along with Venkataiah boarded the auto at Mudigonda to go to Khammam. When the auto reached near bricks factory, after passing Mudigonda police station, the auto turned turtle as the driver applied sudden brakes. In that all of them sustained injuries and the deceased Venkataiah sustained severe injuries. Immediately they were shifted to hospital in 108 Ambulance. It is his further evidence that the accident occurred due to the negligent driver of the driver of the auto and he can identify the driver if he was shown to him and on seeking the petitioner he stated 3 that the petitioner who was present in the court hall is the driver of the auto at the relevant point of time.
5 P.W.3 also deposed in the same manner as was deposed by P.W.2 and she also identified the petitioner as the driver of the auto at the time of accident. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are panchas for the scene of offence and inquest and P.W.6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of Venkataiah.
6 The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is corroborating with each other regarding the manner of accident and also identity of the petitioner being the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. However, in their cross examination, P.Ws.2 and 3 admitted that there was a curve near the police station and the scene of offence is nearby the police station. In such circumstances, the driver of the auto must have taken some care and caution while driving the auto. Instead, the petitioner became responsible for the accident by driving the auto at a high speed and by applying sudden brakes.
7 There is no ambiguity or any doubt with regard to the identity of the petitioner being the person responsible for the accident and he was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution established the guilt of the 4 petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
8 As far as the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 29.06.2012 and it was only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this Court on 04.07.2012 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was in jail for about a week.
9 Having regard to the fact that the said offence relates to the year 2008 i.e. about 14 years back and inasmuch as the petitioner was in jail for about a week, this court is of the view that lenient view can be taken in so far as the said sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the appellate court is concerned.
10 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the learned appellate court is modified and the said sentence is reduced to that of the period, which the petitioner had already undergone. Except the said modification in all other aspects this revision is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal petition shall also stand dismissed.
------------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date:20.09.2023 Kvsn