Telangana High Court
Md. Fazal Rahaman, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 August, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1458 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 16.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.25 of 2009, on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District at Suryapet, confirming the judgment dated 23.01.2009 in C.C.No.602 of 2006 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet, Nalgonda District.
2. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment. He was not found guilty for the charge under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.
3. Continuously, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant on 24.07.2024 and 31.07.2024. Even, today, there is no representation for the appellant, though the matter is posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. I have gone through the record and heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 2
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2006 at about 2:45 p.m. while the deceased-Yadaiah was going to the fields of his owner on foot and when he reached near Epicurus Hotel, the accused who was driving DCM van came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased/Yadaiah, who fell on the ground and received grievous injuries. He was shifted to area hospital, Suryapet and while proceeding to Osmania General Hospital, the deceased died.
5. On the basis of the complaint/Ex.P.1 filed with the Police, the Police investigated the case and filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and under Section 181 of M.V.Act for not holding license.
6. Learned Magistrate examined P.Ws.1 to 10 of whom P.Ws.2 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the accident. On the basis eye-witnesses account, the trial Court held that the accused was driving the DCM van and hit the deceased while going on the road on foot.
7. Further, the said findings of the trial Court were confirmed in the appeal by the Sessions Court. 3
8. Both the Courts below found that not holding Test Identification Parade is of no consequence since both P.W.2 and P.W.6 have observed the vehicle while it was coming from Vijayawada side at high speed and dashed against the deceased who was on the foot along with bulls. Having stopped the vehicle, the accused got down from the vehicle and fled from the scene. The evidence of both P.Ws.2 and 6 was believed since both of them have seen the accused getting down from the vehicle and running away from the scene of offence.
9. Both, P.W.2 and P.W.6 are independent witnesses and there is no reason why they would speak false against the accused. There being no Test Identification Parade will have no bearing on the identity, since P.W.2 and P.W.6 were present at the scene. Incidents such as these would have definite impact on the minds of the witnesses. There are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the accused. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of three months.
4
10. The trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the accused and send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 06.08.2024 dv