Telangana High Court
G.Yadaiah, Medchal, R.R.District vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P.,High ... on 14 August, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1397 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.05.2010 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2010, confirming the order dated 18.12.2009 in C.C.No.641 of 2006 passed by the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated .
2. Continuously, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. 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.
3. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction reduced the sentence of six months imprisonment imposed by the trial Court to three months.
4. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner is that he was the Driver of a Tipper. On 06.01.2006, the said Tipper was driven in a reverse direction negligently, for which reason, it dashed against the bus and the back door of the 2 bus was fully damaged and one of the passenger namely Gaddam Venugopal fell on the road, received injuries and died on the way to hospital.
5. The complaint was filed, case was investigated and charge sheet was laid by the Police.
6. Learned Magistrate examined P.W.1/complainant who is also an eye-witness, P.W.2-scene of offence panch, P.W.3- post mortem examination Doctor and P.Ws.4 and 5 are Police officials. On the basis of evidence of P.W.1 and the manner in which the accident had taken place, the trial Court found that accused was guilty, accordingly, convicted him for 6 months imprisonment under Section 304-A of IPC.
7. In the appeal, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction.
8. The grounds raised before the Court below and also in the present Revision are that there was no Test Identification Parade which was conducted immediately after registration of the crime. Accordingly, identification after 4 years of the incident cannot be believed. In fact, the Driver was a stranger to P.W.1.
3
9. The manner in which the accident had taken place resulted in back portion of the bus being damaged and one passenger in the bus falling down and receiving fatal injuries. In the said circumstances, the identity of the person who had driven the vehicle/Tipper would be remembered for a very long time. The eye-witness account of P.W.1 cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that Test Identification Parade was not conducted.
10. There are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below convicting the accused. However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year, 2006 and nearly 18 years have passed by, the conviction as directed by the Sessions Court is upheld. The trial Court shall 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: 14.08.2024 dv