THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.832 OF 2012
ORDER:
1 Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, 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 XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.631 of 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. 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 rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated 15.07.2011, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court dismissed the said 2 appeal by judgment dated 06.06.2012. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the petitioner / accused.
3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.02.2008 at 3.30 PM, while one N.V.Avinash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AJ 0241 from BATA road, Secunderabad towards Patny cross roads, near Chitra Darga, the petitioner being the driver of the Tipper bearing No.AP 11 W 5848 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle being driven by the deceased from behind and dragged the motorcycle along with the deceased to a considerable distance causing multiple injuries to him all over the body including head and thereby caused his instantaneous death. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1 a case in Cr.No.42 of 2008 was registered under Section 304-A of IPC and investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet.
4 The factum of death of the deceased is not in dispute. P.W.1 is a circumstantial witness. So his evidence cannot be taken into consideration to decide the case. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, who are the direct witnesses to the accident, goes to show that they identified the crime vehicle with its registration number. The factum of involvement of the 3 vehicle in question in the instant case was proved by the evidence of P.W.8 who took interim custody of the vehicle.
5 Now it has to be seen whether there is any material available on record to connect the petitioner to the accident that took place in this instant case. P.Ws.2 and 5 have categorically identified the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle. The accident took place in broad day light where there was sufficient time and opportunity to P.Ws.2 and 5 to see the driver of the vehicle. P.W.2 deposed that when the public raised hue and cry the petitioner stopped the vehicle, got down the vehicle, turned his face back and ran away. The evidence available on record also goes to show that after hitting the deceased from his behind, the driver of the crime vehicle drove the same to some distance without stopping the vehicle. This amply proves the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper at the relevant point of time. The evidence of the Motor Vehicles Inspector also goes to show that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. P.Ws.2 and 5 have neither relationship with the deceased nor have any amenity with the petitioner. So there was no cause for them to depose against the petitioner. Moreover, to fix the responsibility on the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle, the owner of the tipper filed Crl.M.P.No.1262 of 2008 seeking interim custody of the vehicle, wherein he mentioned at para No.7 that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle.
46 So all the above factors lead that the petitioner is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident, that he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from his behind causing his instantaneous death. Therefore, the prosecution could establish the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
7 As far as the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner, the petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year by both the Courts below. However, since the offence is of the year 2008 and since the petitioner has suffered mental agony and trauma all these years, this Court intends to take lenient view insofar as the said sentence of imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year imposed on the petitioner is reduced to simple imprisonment for three months.
8 With the above modification the criminal revision case is allowed partly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision case, shall stand closed.
------------------------
E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.
Date: 21.09.2023 K vsn