THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1025 OF 2011
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 21.04.2011 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2010, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar wherein the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC directing both the sentences to run concurrently, was confirmed.
2. Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Venkata Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
3. The accusation against the petitioner herein was that he being driver of lorry bearing No.AAA 9036, on 15.02.2004 at about 20.30 hours drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, near IOC Petrol Bunk, NH-7, Thimmapur Village and took sudden right turn without indicating or giving any signal due to which, Page 2 of 6 the rider of Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing No.AP 13D 1698, coming behind the said lorry, dashed the lorry resulting in death of one person and injuries to two others. Basing on the complaint of PW7/constable who witnessed the scene, the police registered crime No.34 of 2004 under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the petitioner, investigated into and laid charge-sheet, which was numbered as CC No.50 of 2005. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First class, Shadnagar, upon considering the evidence on record, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as stated supra. The learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, vide judgment dated 21.04.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2010 confirmed the said findings.
4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the petitioner filed the present revision case contending that both the Courts below have erroneously found the petitioner guilty without appreciating the evidence available on record in a right perspective, did not take into consideration the fact of not conducting identification parade, liability and negligence of the rider of the victim motor cycle for committing the accident. 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.
Page 3 of 6
5. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner and his identification as the driver of the crime vehicle, the only eye witness available is PW7, Police Constable as the rider and one pillion rider of the victim motor cycle viz. Raju and Venkatesh died due to the injuries sustained by them in the accident and another pillion rider Anjaiah died subsequently.
6. PW7 lodged Ex.P3 complaint, he deposed that after completion of his duty, while returning to Kothur from Thimmapur, at about 04.50 p.m. near IOC Petrol Bunk, he saw the crime vehicle proceeding in a rash and negligent manner and took right turn without giving any signal due to which, the motor cycle behind the lorry hit the lorry due to which three persons riding on the said motor cycle sustained bleedings injuries, he shifted them to Osmania General Hospital in a jeep. He clearly identified the petitioner as the driver of the same. Though he failed to depose correct number of the crime lorry during his examination and his wrong mentioning of the injured name, they cannot go into the root of the case as due to efflux of time, such minor discrepancies may occur. PW7 himself took the injured to the hospital and got them admitted and the same is proved through wound certificate of Anjaiah. Further, he has no acquaintance or previous rivalry with the petitioner to depose against him. Ex.P6/P12 report Page 4 of 6 issued by Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle leading to accident.
7. As per contents of Exs.P1 and P4 scene of panchanama of Venkatesh and Raju, Exs.P8 and 9 their post-mortem reports, Ex.P4 inquest panchanama of Raju, Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P5 crime detail form, death of said Venkatesh and Raju due to the injuries sustained in the accident was clinchingly established. Evidence of PWs.3 and 8 who are the mediators for Ex.P.1, PWs.10 and 11, who are the mediators for P4, PW14, who treated Anjaiah and issued would certificate, PW15, who conducted autopsy over the bodies of deceased Venkataiah and Raju under Exs.P9 and P10 strengthened the prosecution case that Venkataiah and Raju died due to the injuries sustained in the accident and Anjaiah sustained injuries.
8. PWs.1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 are the relatives of deceased Venkatesh and Raju and their evidence is only regarding the events subsequent to the accident and they are the hear say evidence and their evidence cannot produce any material to point out the liability of the petitioner. PWs.3 and 8 are the mediators of inquest of corpse of G.Venkatesh. PWs.4 and 12 are the mediators for crime detail form. PWs.13, 16 and 17 are the police officials, who took part in the investigation.
Page 5 of 6
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rider of the victim motor cycle did not take safety measures to protect himself and also that he was negligent in allowing two persons as pillion riders cannot sustain as the evidence on record clearly proved that due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioner in suddenly taking turn without giving any signal or indication only the accident had taken place.
10. 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 appellate Court has confirmed the said findings. 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.
11. So far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is a fact to be taken into consideration that since inception of the incident, i.e. 2004, the petitioner has been roaming around the Courts to defend Page 6 of 6 himself from the case by facing mental agony and trauma, which itself is a sufficient ground to take lenient view against him. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to decrease the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the petitioner for all counts to the period which he already underwent while upholding the fine amount.
12. Except the above modification, this criminal revision case is dismissed in all other aspects. 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