THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.954 OF 2012
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.592 of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences Under SCs&STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, directing that the sentences shall run concurrently vide judgment dated 24.11.2011 passed in CC No.467 of 2008, by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, was modified directing the petitioner to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months instead of two years by upholding the fine amount for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC while confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC.
Page 2 of 6
2. Heard Sri Gowri Shanker, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
3. The main accusation against the petitioner herein was that on 05.01.2007 at about 5.15 a.m. when the deceased Naveen Reddy and his brother/PW1, were proceeding towards Erragadda of Hyderabad with a load of rice bags in auto trolley bearing No.AP 28 W 6596, near the office of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Flyover, the petitioner, being the driver of the said auto, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry bearing No.AP5 Y 266, parked to rectify the technical problem, due to which, Naveen Reddy succumbed while undergoing treatment in NIMS and the petitioner and PW1 sustained injuries. PW8, duty constable recorded the statements of the injured, who were admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Crime No.2 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code was registered and subsequently Section 304-A of IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet vide CC No.467 of 2008, wherein learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, upon considering the entire material available on record, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The learned Page 3 of 6 appellate Court, modified the findings of the trial Court, as stated supra.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case mainly contending that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the deceased died after discharge from the hospital and it clearly proves that he died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Further, Investigating officer and the doctor who treated the deceased have not been examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case stating that the findings of both the Courts below are well reasoned and interference of this Court is not warranted.
5. PW2 is the brother of deceased, who accompanied the deceased in the crime vehicle and sustained injuries along with the petitioner and deceased in the accident. PW8 recorded the statements of the injured. PW2 is the driver of the stationed lorry, which was hit by the auto from it's behind. PW2 deposed that due to technical problem, he parked the lorry at the spot by taking all precautions and when they were attending the repair works with the assistance of PW3, the petitioner hit their lorry in a rash and negligent manner with the subject auto. PW4 conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of PW5 under Ex.P1 over the body of the deceased. PW6 is the father of the deceased and PW1 and he narrated the facts relating prior to Page 4 of 6 accident and after the accident. PW7 treated the injured and issued wound certificates under Exs.P.2 to P4. PW8 recorded the statement of deceased under Ex.P5. PW9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, he gave report under Ex.P6 certifying that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident. PW10 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased and gave Exs.P7/PME Certificate and P8/final opinion certifying the cause of death of deceased as head injury.
6. There is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident and sustaining injuries to the petitioner, PW1 and deceased. The prosecution could able to prove the same by adducing substantial evidence. PW1 deposed that inspite of their repeated requests to drive the auto slowly, the petitioner was negligent and rash in driving the auto. PWs.2 and 3 clearly deposed the rash and negligent manner driving of the petitioner in hitting the stationed lorry from it's behind. Ex.P1, statement of deceased, recorded by PW8, corroborated the deposition of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Further it is proved that there were no mechanical defects in the auto leading to accident. Further, as per the evidence of PW6, the petitioner is their relative. Further, there is no whisper regarding previous enmity between the petitioner and PWs.1 and 6 or the deceased to implicate him in a criminal case.
Page 5 of 6
7. The contention of the petitioner that either the doctor, who treated the deceased or the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation are examined by the prosecution. When the prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed the rash and negligent manner driving of the petitioner pointing out his guilt and that the contents of the charge-sheet are clearly explaining the same, non-examination of investigating officer by the prosecution does not weaken the prosecution case. Furthermore, the petitioner has every opportunity and right to invite the investigating officer into the witness box to elicit the incriminating material, if any, in their favour. But the petitioner did not initiate such steps. Further, the evidence of PW10, who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased corroborated by contents of Exs.P7 and 8 clearly deposed that due to head injury, the deceased died. This itself is sufficient to hold that due to the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident only he died.
8. Though several contentions were put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioner, they remained unproved since no corroborative material is adduced on behalf of the petitioner or elicited during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. The trial Court, upon meticulously examining the entire material available on record, has rightly found the guilt of the petitioner for committing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. The Page 6 of 6 appellate Court has rightly confirmed the said findings regarding the guilt of the petitioner but modified the sentence opining that quantum of sentence imposed by the trial Court is excessive. In that view of the matter, this Court has no occasion or reason to interfere with the said findings as they are sustainable and made on reasonable grounds.
9. So far as the quantum sentence awarded to the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC is concerned, it is a fact to be taken into consideration that since occurrence of accident i.e. in the year 2007, the petitioner has been roaming around the Courts to defend himself from the case by facing mental agony and trauma, which itself is a sufficient ground to take lenient view against him. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment imposed to the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC 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 Courts below 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 : 26-09-2023 abb