Ambati Dhanakumar, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9632 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1030 OF 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Section 397 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), came to be

filed by the petitioner, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal

No.349 of 2008 on the file of the Court of VI Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari District, Rajahmundry

(for short, the 'learned Additional Sessions Judge'), challenging the

judgment therein, dated 19-06-2009, wherein the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by

the appellant but modified the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment

of six months awarded by the trial Court as that of three months

and confirmed the rest of the judgment, dated 30.10.2008, in C.C.

No.24 of 2005 of the learned Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Ramachandrapuram (for short, the 'learned

Magistrate').

2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be

referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of

convenience.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

3. The State, represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ramachandrapuram Police Station, filed the charge sheet in Crime

No.1 of 2005 alleging the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). The case of

the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

On 06.01.2005 evening, one Mallipudi Sri Veera Venkata

Satyanarayana, who is the contractor at Kakinada, approached

the de-facto complainant Pemmadi Nookaraju, who is a resident of

Kakinada, to come to Ramachandrapuram for loading the

generator on the van and bargained for Rs.500/-. The said

Nookaraju is doing loading and unloading work on boats. The said

Nookaraju engaged Pinapothu Kasulaiah (hereinafter referred to as

the deceased), Pemmadi Srinu, Palepu Sathibabu, Kaladi Krishna

and Kaladi Sathiraju for loading the same. The contractor

M.S.V.Satyanarayana arranged a van bearing No.AP 31-V-1839

driven by Punyamanthula Rajesh. All of them left Kakinada at

04:00 PM. The contractor Satyanarayana and Garlapati

Satyanarayana were travelling in the cabin, whereas the de-facto

complainant and other five workers engaged by him were travelling

on the body of the van. At about 05:00 PM when the van reached

Chodavaram village, the accused, who was driving the Lorry

bearing No.AP7-V-4113 from the side of Ramachandrapuram to

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

Velangi, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn,

dashed against the van in opposite direction and dragged the

deceased, who caught hold of the right side angular of the van,

resulting in his instantaneous death. As a result of hit, the driver

of the van was unable to control it and went towards the left side

fields and leaned aside as a result the remaining eight persons

including the driver sustained injuries. On receipt of the hospital

intimation on 06.01.2005 at 06:30 PM, the Head Constable P.S.C.

Satyanarayana Murthy of Ramachandrapuram rushed to the

hospital and recorded the statement of Pemmadi Nookaraju and

handed over the same to Sub-Inspector of Police P.V.Ramana, who

in turn registered the same as a case in Cr.No.1 of 2005 under

Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC at 07:45 PM and investigated into.

Having inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators,

got drafted the scene of observation report and took photographs

and prepared a rough sketch. He also conducted inquest over the

dead body of the deceased. On 11.01.2005, he arrested the

accused and enlarged him on bail. The Motor Vehicle Inspector

inspected both the vehicles and issued a report opining that the

accident was not due to mechanical defect of any of the vehicles.

Dr.N.V.Ramana Murthy, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Ramachandrapuram, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

deceased and issued certificate opining that the deceased died due

to hemorrhage shock, head injury and fracture of multiple bones.

Dr. T.Durga Raju, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Ramachandrapuram, examined the injured and issued certificate

opining that the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, the charge

sheet.

4. On perusing the material on hand, cognizance was taken

against the accused for the offences under Sections 304(A) and

337 IPC.

5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents

were furnished to the accused in compliance with Section 207

Cr.P.C and thereafter he was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C.,

for which he denied the offences under Sections 304(A) and 337

IPC, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution, during the course of trial, examined PWs.1 to 12 and

marked Exs.P-1 to P-23.

7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused

was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

incriminating circumstances in the evidence and he denied the

same and stated that he has no defence evidence.

8. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram, on hearing both sides and considering the

oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused

guilty of the charges under Sections 304(A) and 337 IPC and, after

questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to

undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two

months for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC and further

sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under

Section 337 IPC in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one

month.

9. As against the above said judgment of the trial Court, the

petitioner herein filed Criminal Appeal No.349 of 2008 before the

learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, who by

modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section

304(A) IPC as that of three months instead of six months,

dismissed the rest of the Appeal.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

10. Challenging the same, the unsuccessful appellant therein,

filed this Criminal Revision Case.

11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Revision Case, the point that

arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal

Appeal No.349 of 2008, dated 19.06.2009, by the learned VI

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajahmundry suffers with any

illegality, irregularity and impropriety?

12. Sri M.S.P. Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Challa

Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend

that PWs.1 to 3 clearly admitted in cross-examination that on

account of sitting in the cabin of the van, there was no possibility

to see opposite vehicles for them and the Court below did not

appreciate the evidence in a proper manner and, according to the

evidence of PW.3, the driver of the van, which was alleged to have

been hit by the lorry, there was no fault on the part of the driver of

the lorry and the learned trial Judge as well as the appellate Judge

did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective, as such

Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.

13. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing

learned Public Prosecutor, sought to support the judgment of the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

trial Court on the ground that PWs.1 and 2, direct witnesses, fully

supported the case of the prosecution and the accused was the

driver of the vehicle at the time of the incident and he hit the van

with lorry by his rash and negligent act and there are other

witnesses supporting the case of the prosecution, as such the

Courts below rightly appreciated the evidence on record. With the

above said contention, he sought to dismiss the Criminal Revision

Case.

14. The case of the prosecution is that Mallipudi Sri Veera

Venkata Satyanarayana was the contractor at Kakinada. He

approached de-facto complainant to come to Ramachandrapuram

for loading the generator on the van. Nookaraju used to do loading

and unloading works. So, Nookaraju engaged the deceased viz.,

Pinapothu Kasulaiah and others. All of them started to travel in a

van bearing No.AP 31-V-1839 driven by Punyamanthula Rajesh. It

is the allegation that accused being the driver of the lorry bearing

No.AP 7-V-4113 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner

and hit the opposite coming van, which resulted into the death of

the deceased and further every person in the van received injuries.

This is substance of the case of the prosecution.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

15. PW.1 before the Court below is the de-facto complainant

who testified the fact that Garlapati Satyanarayana entrusted

loading work of Generator and he engaged a van bearing No.AP

31-V-1839 and on 06.01.2005 at 03:00 PM, he along with the

deceased Kasulaiah, P. Srinu, K. Krishnaiah, Kalasi Sathi Babu

left Kakinada in the said van to Ramachandrapuram. When they

reached Chodavaram, a lorry bearing No.AP 7-V-4113 came from

Ramachandrapuram at a high speed without blowing horn, hit the

van and dragged Kasulaiah, to a long distance, who was standing

on the right side of the body of the lorry by holding the angular. It

dragged Kasulaiah to a distance of 20 yards. Then the driver of the

van turned aside towards left side and fell on the bund of the

paddy field. Kasulaiah died then and there. He (PW.1) sustained

injuries. Accused was the driver of the lorry by then. He gave

Ex.P-1 report to the Police.

16. PW.2, who claimed to have travelled in the van, spoken to

the fact that the driver of the lorry came in opposite direction and

hit the van, which resulted into the death of the deceased.

Evidence of PW.2 supported the evidence of PW.1 on material

aspects.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

17. PW.3, the driver of the van, deposed that he found some

people nearby the pan shop, as such he swerved right then

towards left and he noticed a lorry coming in opposite direction

and a cyclist who was proceeding on the left side of the lorry. So,

in order to avoid hitting the cyclist the driver of the lorry came

towards right and hit to the right side of the van. He has spoken

about the death of the deceased and receipt of injuries by him and

others.

18. As seen from the cross-examination of PW.1, absolutely, the

accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the offending

vehicle at the time of incident in question. In cross-examination,

he deposed that he did not state before Police about the identity of

the driver of the lorry. He has no proper acquaintance with the

driver. He travelled in the body of the lorry. The lorry was

proceeding in the right side from Ramachandrapuram to

Kakinada. He does not know whether the driver of the van took a

turn to avoid hit to the people. He denied that accident took place

when the driver of the van in order to avoid for hitting the people

took a turn. It is to be noticed that in the entire cross-

examination, accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the

lorry. Similarly, during the course of cross-examination of PW.2,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

accused did not dispute that he was the driver of the lorry. When

that is the situation the contention of revision petitioner in the

grounds of revision that the prosecution did not conduct test

identification of the accused deserves no merit.

19. Admittedly, PW.3, who was the driver of the van, for

obvious reasons best known deposed certain answers in cross-

examination as if there is no fault on the part of the accused. The

Court below gave a finding that originally the cross-examination of

PW.3 was not done on the date of chief-examination and after the

witness was put into box for cross-examination, he deposed

certain answers in favour of the defence.

20. This Court would like to make it clear that though the

prosecution did not seek to cross-examine PW.3 but the evidence

in chief-examination and cross-examination of PW.3 goes to show

that for obvious reasons he wanted to give a clean chit to the

accused as if there was no fault on his part. So, his chief-

examination is such that they six in number started from

Kakinada to Ramachandrapuram on 06.01.2005 when they

reached Narasapurapupeta near pan shop as there were some

people he took right side and then left then they found a lorry

coming in opposite direction. Then a cyclist was proceeding. The

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

driver of the lorry to avoid in hitting the cyclist took right side as a

result the lorry hit the right side of the van. During the course of

cross-examination, on behalf of the accused, he deposed that he

did not state before Police about the driver of the lorry coming

towards right in order to avoid hitting the cyclist. So, it is the

accused who elicited from the mouth of PW.1 that the evidence

spoken by him on crucial aspects giving a clean chit to the

accused was not spoken by him before the Police in his statement

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. So, it is clear that the evidence of PW.3

was nothing but an attempt to sympathize the accused and having

gone through the evidence of PW.3, virtually there is no dispute

about the fact that the accused driven the vehicle and hit the van

of PW.3 in which PWs.1 and 2 were travelling. So, by virtue of the

above evidence the fact that the accused was the driver of the lorry

is not in dispute and the defence of accused before PWs.1 and 2 is

nothing but evasive.

21. Turning to the evidence of PW.4, who is one of the injured

witnesses, has spoken to the fact that when he was travelling in

the van along with others, the lorry came in opposite direction and

hit the van as such he received injuries.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

22. Similar is the evidence of PWs.5 and 6. PW.5, one of the

injured witnesses, supported the case of the prosecution.

23. PW.7 has spoken to the fact that the lorry was coming from

the side of the Ramachandrapuram to Kakinada and a van was

coming from Kakinada with some passengers. The driver of the

lorry hit the van and a person from the van fell down, received

injuries and died on the spot.

24. PW.8 is the mahazar witness who was present at the time of

scene of offence observation report.

25. PW.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who examined the

crime vehicle and opined that the accident was not occurred due

to mechanical defect.

26. PWs.10 and 11 are the Medical Officers who have spoken

about the injuries on PWs.1 to 5 and others.

27. PW.12 is the Photographer, who took Exs.P-14 to P-20.

28. PW.13 is the Investigating Officer.

29. By virtue of the evidence adduced, the prosecution has

cogently established the fact that the accused was the driver of the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

lorry at the time of incident in question. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2

goes to reveal that the lorry came in opposite direction with all

speed and hit the van and the deceased who was on the top of the

van fell down due to such hitting and died instantaneously and

due to that PWs.1 to 5 received injuries. Though a deliberate

attempt was made by PW.3 to show some sympathy towards the

accused but the improvement made by PW.3 so as to help the

accused cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. Apart from this,

PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 supported the case of the prosecution. It is to be

noticed that the defence of the accused before the prosecution

witnesses is nothing but evasive. There were no probabilities in the

defence of the accused, in my considered view. The accused for

obvious reasons did not deny that he was the driver of the vehicle

but he set forth a defence that the driver of the vehicle to avoid

hitting the people took a turn and in that process accident took

place. The above said defence of the accused is not at all probable.

So, virtually the defence of the accused was evasive and he was

not at all emphatic in his evidence. On the other hand, the

evidence adduced by the prosecution is cogent and proves the fact

that the accused driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner and hit the opposite coming van as a result of which the

deceased died and several persons received injuries.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

30. A perusal of the judgment of the Court below shows that the

learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram rightly appreciated the evidence on record

and further the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), East

Godavari District at Rajahmundry also rightly appreciated the

evidence on record. As against the judgment of the appellate Court

reducing the imprisonment from six months to three months,

there is no Appeal or Revision. Under the circumstances, this

Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer with any illegality,

irregularity and impropriety, as such I see no merit in the Criminal

Revision Case.

31. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.

32. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under

Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court along with the

lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before

19.12.2022 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take

necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the

petitioner in C.C. No.24 of 2005, dated 30.10.2008, and report

compliance to this Court. A copy of this order be placed before the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.1030/2009

Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to

the concerned Officers in the Registry.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date :15.12.2022 DSH