Telangana High Court
Venugopal Jayaraman vs The State Of A.P., on 29 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1604 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/Accused was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, in CC.No.93/2007 vide Judgment dated 17.12.2007 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The said conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.168 of 2007 vide Judgment dated 16.09.2009. Aggrieved by the said confirmation, the revision petitioner/Accused is before this Court.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner is that while he was driving the Swaraj Mazda van bearing No.TN 20 AZ 6301 which is the offending vehicle, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in running over the sheep and also the deceased. 45 sheep died and 8 sheep were injured and one woman namely M.Kanakamma died. The said incident happened on 13.12.2006. 2
4. During the course of investigation, the accused surrendered on 18.12.2006. The police having concluded investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioner.
5. The trial Court examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P62. The Courts below found that PWs.1, 2 and 3 were eye-witnesses to the said incident. Having running over the sheep and the woman, the driver left the vehicle and fled from the scene. The Motor Vehicle Inspector was also examined as PW5 who stated that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner. The said conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal.
6. The legal aid counsel Sri Mir Mazher Ali Khan appearing on behalf of revision petitioner would submit that the driver was a stranger and it is highly improbable that PWs.1 to 3 would have identified him since the vehicle stopped at a distance and the driver had fled. There was no Test Identification Parade held to identify the accused. Only on the basis of his surrender, the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the appellant was the driver. Since the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be believed, revision has to be allowed.
7. As seen from the manner in which the accident had taken place, more than 45 sheep died on the road including the deceased. PW.1 was present along with the sheep. PWs.2 and 3 were also 3 present at the scene. The manner in which the accident had taken place when the vehicle had run over nearly 45 sheep, there is no doubt left that the driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in death of 45 sheep and the death of the woman who was along with the sheep. In such a case, the identity of the driver at the scene was established by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that the driver was a stranger. The accident happened at 10.00 A.M and immediately at 10.30 A.M., Police complaint was lodged giving details of the vehicle. Only for the reason of the driver surrendering 5 days after the incident will not dilute the identity of the driver in any manner. During the course of investigation, even if the driver surrenders that does not mean that the driver has been falsely implicated. Since the circumstances of the case are convincing and also the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs.1 to 3 is convincing, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction.
8. Accordingly, the revision fails and dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.04.2024 tk