THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1148 OF 2011
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2 The petitioner herein along with another was tried as accused by the learned V Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Warangal, in C.C.No.40 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire evidence found the petitioner and another guilty of the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 22.12.2008, the petitioner, who was A.2, preferred Criminal Appeal No.11 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned VIII Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) at Warangal, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court, by judgment dated 25.04.2011, dismissed the appeal. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the petitioner / 2nd accused. 2 3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.11.2004 at about 8.00 pm, while the deceased by name A.Rajaiah was proceeding on the extreme left side of the road and when reached in front of Bharath Oil Company Petrol Pump, Fort Road, Warangal, the first accused who was driving Bajaj Qawasaki Motorcycle bearing No.AP 36 H 1067 proceeding from Warangal towards Shambunipet, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased Rajaiah from his behind, as a result of which, the deceased and A.1 fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries. In the meanwhile, a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 36 U 3175/3176 driven by the petitioner herein in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed ran over the motorcycle, which in turn hit the deceased and crushed him under the tractor. In connection with the accident, a case in Cr.No.431 of 2004 under Section 304-A of IPC was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the police laid charge sheet against the petitioner and another for the said offence.
4 The evidence of P.W.1 is circumstantial. P.Ws.2 and 5 are the direct witness to the accident. P.W.2 specifically deposed that on 26.11.2004 at 8.00 pm, while he was going on cycle and when he reached Fort road petrol pump, A.1 who was going on motorcycle dashed the deceased and A.2 (petitioner herein) who was the driver of the 3 tractor and trailer ran over the deceased. He specifically identified A.1 and A.2 in the Court. So also P.W.5 is another eyewitness to the accident. His evidence is also to the effect that one old man was going ahead of him and one motorcycle was going in the same direction. The motorcycle dashed the old man due to which the old man fell down. Immediately a tractor and trailer came speedily and ran over the old man who was on the ground. The rider of the motorcycle was A.1 and the driver of the tractor was A.2 (petitioner herein). 5 From the evidence of PWs.2 and 5, it is clear that they identified the accused being the drivers of the respective vehicles. No enmity has been attributed to P.Ws.2 and 5 to depose against the accused persons so as to implicate them in the incident. In view of the categorical evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 who are the direct witnesses to the accident, non-conducting of identification parade, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no avail to the case of the defence. Moreover, P.W.3 who is the owner of the tractor and trailer also deposed that the petitioner was the driver of the tractor and trailer at the relevant point of time.
6 From the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5 it can also be inferred the rash and negligence on the part of the accused at the time of accident. The investigation reveals that the driver of the tractor and trailer lost his 4 control over the vehicle because of which the motorcycle got struck between the front wheel of the tractor and the deceased was lying under the wheel of the motorcycle. The tractor was driven towards back and then the deceased was pulled out but the motor cycle the motorcycle remained struck underneath the tractor. This itself shows the speed at which the tractor was driven and the rash and negligence on the part of the petitioner while driving the tractor and trailer. 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 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 25.04.2011 and it was only after this revision was admitted and bail was granted by this Court on 18.05.2011 the petitioner came out of the jail. Thus, the petitioner was in jail for about three weeks.
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 5 for more than three weeks, 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 courts below is concerned.
10 In the result, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below 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