Telangana High Court
Samala Mal Reddy, Turkaguda V, ... vs The State Of A.P., Through P.P., ... on 26 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2007 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/Accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. In appeal, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge while confirming the conviction modified the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was a driver of RTC bus. PW1 is the mother of the deceased. P.W.1 and the deceased went to police hospital at Malakpet on 21.12.2004. When the deceased was crossing to the other side of the road, the RTC bus driven by the petitioner dashed against the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. The trial Judge having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 out of whom PWs.2 and 7 are eye witnesses, found that the petitioner was guilty and accordingly convicted him. The conviction was confirmed in appeal.
2
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would submit that the case of rash and negligent driving and causing accident was not proved against the petitioner. In fact, the evidence on record would go to show that there was a divider on the road which is of two feet height and the deceased was crossing road when he fell underneath the rear tyres of the bus. In the said circumstances when the person had fallen under the rear tyres, it can not be said that the driver was negligent. Further, learned counsel has taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.1/mother of the deceased and P.W.6/Inspector, who investigated the case to substantiate that the deceased fell underneath the rear tyres of the bus. Learned counsel relied on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka 1 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the fine amount while reducing the imprisonment to the period already undergone. He also relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar Lolienkar v. State of Goa and another2 wherein also the 1 (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 225 2 (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 161 3 substantive sentence was reduced to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount.
4. Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1602 of 2007, dt.21.03.2023 and the Judgment of High Court of Karnataka in K.Srinivas v. State of Karnataka3.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the other hand argued that the bus driver who is the petitioner, should have taken precaution while driving on the road. In the absence of taking precaution, the accident would itself indicate that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the death of the deceased.
6. P.W.1, who was the mother of the deceased stated that the deceased came underneath the rear tyres of the bus. P.W.6-Inspector stated that rough sketch was drawn and the photographs were also taken. However, the rough sketch was not produced before the trial Court. The sketch would come in handy to the Court to ascertain regarding the scene of the offence and would be corroborate the version given by either of 3 MANU/KA/0846/2002: 2002 (3) KCCR 1961 4 the parties. The sketch would also help the Court in making a fair assessment regarding scene and the manner in which the accident had taken place.
7. Though photographs were taken, the said photographs were also not placed on record during the trial. P.W.6 in his cross-examination admitted that there was no zebra crossing where the body was found. P.W.6 further stated that he found the body of the deceased on the left side of the road divider and near front wheel of the bus. Further, the Investigation Officer stated that the bus moved ahead after the incident and there was no blood stains on the rear tyres.
8. The version given by P.W.1 regarding the body being found beneath the rear tyres is contradicted by PW6- Investigating Officer. If the bus had moved ahead after the accident or being run over according to investigating officer- PW6, the question of the body being found on the left side of the road divider near front wheel of the bus does not arise.
9. There is discrepancy as to how the accident had taken place. The photographs and the scene of offence sketch would 5 have made it clear as to how the accident had taken place and whether the front tyres or the rear tyres ran over the deceased. In the said circumstances, when the prosecution version is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.39/2009, dt.20-11-2009, and the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted. Since the revision petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 26.07.2024 tk