The Criminal Revision Case Is ... vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 9862 AP

                               1



     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

       CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.747 OF 2009

ORDER:-

     The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the Revision

Petitioner, who was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.94 of

2008, on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, challenging the

judgment, dated 29.04.2009, whereunder the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment

in C.C.No.359 of 2004, on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Ramachandrapuram, but modified the

sentence of rigorous imprisonment of six months into rigorous

imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section

304-A of Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short) and confirming

the rest of the judgment.

     2)    The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will

hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court, for

the sake of convenience.

     3)    The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the

Court below, according to the charge sheet filed by the police
                                   2



pertaining to Crime No.57 of 2004 of Draksharama Police

Station, is as follows:

      (i) Accused was resident of Kakinada. He was the driver

of crime R.T.C. Bus bearing No.A.P.9Z 5420 with valid driving

licence at the time of accident on 14.05.2004 at 6-30 P.M., near

Unduru Bridge. L.W.1-Penamallu Rama Suryanarayana Reddy is

resident of Bhimakrosupalem village of Ramachandrapuram

Mandal. He took the mango garden of Nallavaru, situated near

Jagannadhagiri on lease for the year 2004 and is residing there.

He is the injured-complainant. L.W.2-Chollangi Suribabu is the

direct witness.    L.W.3-Penumallu Suryanarayana and L.W.4-

Penumallu     Papireddy   are   the   brother   and father   of one

Penumalla Gandhala Reddy (hereinafter will be referred as

"deceased")     respectively.   L.W.5-Tamadi      Bandaru    is   the

Conductor of crime APSRTC Bus.

      (ii) The deceased aged 35 years is the son of L.W.4 and

nephew to defacto-complainant.        On 14.05.2004 the deceased

from his village came to L.W.1 to see the mango garden, which

was taken on lease by L.W.1 and the same evening L.W.1 by

taking the deceased nephew on his cycle as pillion rider was

going towards Bhimakrosupalem village. After crossing Unduru
                                  3



Bridge, they proceeded further to some other distance to

Chaitanya godowns.       Then, crime RTC bus driven by the

accused-driver came in high speed in a rash and negligent

manner without blowing horn and hit the cycle from its back at

6-30 P.M. Then both L.W.1 and the deceased fell on ground and

the deceased became unconscious.         L.W.1 received contusion

injury on the right wrist and abrasion injury on the right foreleg.

L.W.2 witnessed the occurrence. Soon after the accident,

passengers in the bus at their own went away and the accused-

driver assisted by L.W.5, lifted the deceased and L.W.1 in the

same crime bus to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. On

examination of the deceased, who was in unconscious stage, the

Doctor declared him as brought dead.           Accused-driver after

admitting them in the hospital left the crime bus and escaped.

Basing on the death intimation of the deceased and a medico

legal case intimation and statement of L.W.1 received from

Police   Outpost,   Government       General   Hospital,   Kakinada,

L.W.14-the Sub-Inspector of Police issued F.I.R. in Crime No.57

of 2004 under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. and investigated

into.    He examined the scene of offence in the presence of

L.Ws.7 and 8, the mediators and got photographed the scene
                                   4



with the help of the Photographer i.e., L.W.6 and conducted

inquest over the dead body of the deceased at mortuary shed of

Government General Hospital, Kakinada on 16.05.2004 in the

presence of L.Ws.3 and 4, blood relatives and L.Ws.9 and 10.

Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem examination.

L.W.11, the Motor Vehicles Inspector, examined the crime

vehicle and opined that the accident was not caused due to any

mechanical defects of the vehicle.         L.W.13, who conducted

autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the

cause of death of deceased was shock and hemorrhage due to

multiple injuries.    L.W.12, the Medical Officer, examined L.W.1

and issued wound certificate, opining that the injuries received

by him are simple in nature. During the course of investigation,

Sub-Inspector    of    Police   arrested   the   accused-driver   on

16.05.2004

when he surrendered himself in the police station

and released him on bail. Hence, the charge sheet.

4) The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Ramachandrapuram, took cognizance on file under

Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. On appearance of the accused

and on furnishing copies of documents as required under Section

207 of Cr.P.C., accused was examined under Section 251 of

Cr.P.C. and he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

5) During the course of trial, on behalf of the

prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7

were marked and during the course of cross examination of

P.W.1, Ex.D.1, relevant portion of Section 161 of Cr.P.C.

statement, was marked. After the closure of evidence of the

prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances, for

which he denied the same and reported no defence witnesses.

6) The learned Magistrate, on hearing both sides and

on consideration of the evidence available on record, found the

accused guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 of

I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 255 (2) of Cr.P.C. and

after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced

him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a

fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for

one month for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and

further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to

suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under

Section 337 of I.P.C. Felt aggrieved by the same, the

unsuccessful accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008,

on the file of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),

East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, which came to be

dismissed on merits. Felt aggrieved by the same, the

unsuccessful appellant filed the present Criminal Revision Case,

impugning the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

7) Now in deciding the Criminal Revision Case, the

point that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned

judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram in Criminal

Appeal No.94 of 2008, suffers with any illegality, irregularity or

impropriety and whether there are any grounds to interfere with

the said judgment?

Point:-

8) Sri Raja Harsha, learned counsel, representing the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that

P.W.2, one of the eye witnesses, turned hostile to the case of

the prosecution and P.W.3 did not support the case of the

prosecution and basing on the solitary evidence of P.W.1, the

injured, the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner and the

learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East

Godavari at Rajamahendravaram also erroneously dismissed the

appeal. There was no rash and negligent act proved against the

revision petitioner, as such, Criminal Revision Case is liable to

be allowed.

9) Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel,

representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would submit that

the Court below looking into the direct evidence and

documentary evidence, rightly appreciated the evidence on

record and rightly gave findings that accused was the driver of

the offending vehicle and he hit the bicycle of injured and

deceased and caused injuries to P.W.1 and caused death of

deceased and the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, rightly

dismissed the appeal, as such, there are no grounds to interfere

with the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

10) The case of the prosecution is that the accused

being driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus on 14.05.2004 while P.W.1, the

injured and the deceased were moving on the bicycle, driven the

offending bus in a rash and negligent manner without blowing

horn, at about 6-30 P.M., hit the bicycle, as a consequences of

which, both of them fell down and the deceased succumbed to

injures. So, according to the prosecution, the deceased was the

pillion rider on the bicycle and P.W.1 was the rider of the

bicycle.

11) To bring home the guilt of the accused, the

prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses. Firstly, this

Court would like to see as to whether the prosecution was able

to prove before the Court below that accused was driver of the

A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 9Z 5420 at the time of accident

in question. There is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the

deceased, Gandala Reddy, is his nephew. About three years ago

at 6-00 P.M. when he and deceased were returning from

Jagannadagiri on cycle and when they reached Unduru Bridge,

one RTC bus coming from the side of Kakinada, hit their cycle

from its behind without blowing horn. He fell down on one side

i.e., left side and the deceased fell down on the right side. At

that time he was riding the cycle. He received injuries to his

head and leg. Bus ran over the deceased. Deceased died

instantaneously. He was shifted to the hospital by the driver of

the bus. Accused is the driver of the said bus. Police recorded

his statement. Ex.P.1 is his statement.

12) P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution.

Prosecution cross examined him and he denied that he stated

before police as in Ex.P.2.

13) P.W.3 is the Conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C. According to

him, three years ago they left Kakinada at 5-30 P.M. to go to

Kotipalli. Bus was being driven by accused. At 6-30 P.M. when

they crossed Unduru Bridge, some passengers boarded the bus.

After issued tickets to them, he was preparing Statistical Return

(S.R.). Bus passed Unduru Bridge and it was going slowly.

Accused-driver suddenly stopped the bus by applying breaks.

Then both of them got down from the bus and found two

persons going by a cycle fallen on the road with injuries. There

are four or five passengers in the bus. They shifted the injured

to the hospital. Prosecution sought to cross examine the

witness and the Court below permitted and during the course of

cross examination, he denied that he stated before police as in

Ex.P.3.

14) Coming to the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating

officer, during investigation accused-driver of the RTC bus

surrendered before him and he arrested him and verified the

records and seized Statistical Return and ticket account records

from the accused. Ex.P.17 is the said Statistical Return. He

further testified that P.Ws.2 and 3 stated before him as in

Exs.P.2 and P.3 respectively. So, there is evidence of P.Ws.1, 3

and 10, investigating officer, to prove the fact that accused was

the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident in

question.

15) During cross examination of P.W.1, accused did not

dispute that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. P.W.3,

the Conductor, testified the fact that accused was the driver of

the offending vehicle. Though he did not support the case of the

prosecution with regard to the manner of the accident, which

will hereinafter be discussed, but he categorically testified that

accused was the driver. Even the evidence of P.W.10, the

investigating officer, is not challenged in this regard. Accused

himself during Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination put-forth a

version that he was the driver of the bus on that particular day.

He put-forth a different version that he found two persons with

injuries on the road and he and Conductor took them to the

hospital, but, he is implicated falsely. The defence of the

accused in this regard will be discussed hereinafter. So, it is

crystal clear that the prosecution before the Court below was

able to prove categorically that the accused was the driver of

the offending vehicle at the time of offence. Even Ex.P.17

Conductor's Statistical Return categorically proves that the

accused was driving the vehicle on that day.

16) Now, the crucial point that has to be considered is as

to whether accused was responsible for the death of deceased

by hitting the bicycle of P.W.1 and the deceased when they were

riding as rider and pillion rider. P.W.1 spoken to the manner of

the accident as if the bus came behind its back and without

blowing any horn, hit the bicycle. For obvious reason, P.Ws.2

and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution whose hostility

is proved through the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating

officer, who deposed that they stated as in Exs.P.2 and P.3

respectively. So, insofar as direct evidence is concerned, there

is evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that the bus driven by the

accused came behind the cycle and hit, in consequence of

which, he received injuries and the deceased died. Prosecution

to prove the factum of accident examined P.W.4, the

Photographer. Through him Exs.P.4 to P.7, Photographs, are

marked and further examined P.W.5, who was the mediator to

the observation of the scene of offence. P.W.5 spoken about the

observation of the scene of offence by the police where they

noticed a Royal cycle with a wooden carrier on rear side and

found two baskets to the cycle with fruits and dead body in a

pool of blood, etc. He scribed Ex.P.8, panchanama. The

evidence of P.W.5 is not impeached in anywhere. So, by virtue

of evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the prosecution was able to prove

the things that were found at the scene of offence after the

accident. The evidence of P.W.6 is to the effect that he

inspected the crime vehicle on 17.05.2004 at request of police

and found that the accident occurred was not due any

mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. Ex.P.9 is the M.V.I.

Report. P.W.9 is the inquest panchayatdar, who supported the

case of the prosecution with regard to conduct of inquest over

the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.12 is the inquestnama.

P.W.10, the investigating officer, spoken about the investigation

conducted by him in detail.

17) The case of the prosecution is that police came to

the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered

it as F.I.R. in Crime No.57 of 2004 under Sections 304-A and

338 of I.P.C., which is Ex.P.15. P.W.10 spoken about his

proceeding to the Government General Hospital, observation of

the scene of offence, conducting inquest, preparation of rough

sketch, forwarding the dead body to the postmortem

examination and further examination of the witnesses and

surrender of the accused, seizure of Ex.P.17 and getting

examination of the offending vehicle by the M.V. Inspector, etc.

During the cross examination nothing is elicited to shatter his

testimony.

18) Admittedly, the direct evidence is that of the

evidence of P.W.1 in this regard. For obvious reasons, P.W.3,

the Conductor, did not support the case of the prosecution. His

hostility is proved by the evidence of P.W.10, the investigating

officer. So, the defence theory by virtue of exhibited hostile

attitude of P.W.3 and by virtue of the version put-forth by the

accused during Section 313 of Cr.P.C. examination is that when

the bus reached Unduru bridge, they found a crowd and then

they stopped the bus and found two persons in serious condition

and on humanitarian grounds they took them to the hospital to

provide a treatment and later on the next day police came and

intimated them that they would arrest him for which he

questioned them and they replied one person died in the

hospital and for the purpose of insurance, they implicated him.

This is the defence theory.

19) It is to be noticed that the contention of the accused

before the Court below is that if really the accident was occurred

when RTC bus was moving in speed, certainly there would have

been scratch marks or the cycle would have been damaged. It

is to be noticed that according to the evidence of P.W.3, the bus

was moving in slow condition. It is to be noticed that one may

drive the vehicle in a negligent manner without going in high

speed and one may drive the vehicle in a speedy manner with

proper care. So, speed is not the criteria to decide the rash and

negligent act. In that view of the matter, there need not be any

damage to the cycle of P.W.1 at the time of accident. Even

otherwise, there appears to be a scratch mark to the body of the

bus. Even otherwise, the defence of the accused before the

Court below can be negatived with any amount of cogent

evidence available in the form of Ex.P.17, Statistical Return. A

look at Ex.P.17, Statistical Return, goes to belie the very

evidence of P.W.3. There is no dispute that Ex.P.17 was seized

from the possession of the accused when he surrendered. So, it

goes to reveal that Ex.P.17 contains self-explanatory version

that on 14.05.2005 at 5-30 P.M. when the trip is from Kakinada

to Kotipalli and at about 6-30 P.M. when bus reached Unduru

village, the Conductor heard some sound of hitting to the bus.

Then they stopped the bus and he and the driver found one

person with injuries and another person by the side of the road.

During the cross examination of P.W.10, the contents in Ex.P.17

are not at all disputed by the defence. So, it is the accused and

P.W.3, who got a mention in Ex.P.17 that they heard sound of

something hitting to the bus. So, by virtue of contents in

Ex.P.17, the evidence of P.W.1 has full corroboration.

20) Apart from this, it is the accused and Conductor,

who took injured and deceased to the hospital and Exs.P.13 and

P.14 are the hospital intimation and death intimation wherein it

was mentioned that deceased was alleged to have been hit by

the bus near Unduru Bridge. So, the accident time was 6-30

P.M. on 14.05.2005. The deceased brought to dead at 8-20

P.M. So, virtually, there was no possibility for implicating the

accused within a short span of time as if he hit the cycle. So, all

these go to show that evidence of P.W.1 that the bus hit the

cycle has corroboration from the own document of accused and

P.W.3 i.e., Ex.P.17.

21) If really the bus did not hit P.W.1 and deceased and

for no fault of accused, P.W.1 and the deceased were lying with

injuries, this Court is not able to understand how accused

ventured to take them to the hospital. According to Ex.P.17, the

route map is from Kakinada to Kotipalli. How accused and

P.W.3 changed the route and came down to Kakinada is

shrouded in mystery. So, their coming to Kakinada along with

RTC bus and injured and deceased could only be possible when

the bus hit the bicycle. Apart from this, there was no need or

necessity for the accused to keep the offending vehicle at the

Government Hospital and absconded from the hospital. If really

on humanitarian grounds he brought the injured to the hospital,

he would have left the hospital along with bus and P.W.3 instead

of stationing the bus at the hospital. So, all these go to show

that the accused having hit the bicycle brought the injured and

the deceased to the hospital. The evidence available before the

Court below clinchingly proves that the accident was occurred

when the RTC bus hit the bicycle of P.W.1, on which P.W.1 was

a rider and deceased was a pillion rider.

22) Coming to the rash and negligent act, accused did

not offer any probable explanation as to how he could hit a

bicycle going ahead of the RTC bus. On the other hand, his

defence was evasive as if he found the injured lying on the road

which is nothing but a false defence. Hence, the prosecution

was able to prove that accident was occurred due to rash and

negligent act of the accused.

23) Coming to the cause of death by virtue of the

evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and further evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5, the

punch witnesses for the observation of the scene of offence and

evidence of P.W.7, the inquest panchayatdar, it is crystal clear

that P.W.1 and the deceased received injuries in the accident

that was occurred. According to P.W.8, he found injuries on the

body of P.W.1 and the injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P.11 is

the wound certificate. According to P.W.7, he conducted

postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased

and opined that the deceased appears to have died of shock and

hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Ex.P.10 is the postmortem

examination report. So, the prosecution was able to prove

further that due to negligent act of the accused, the deceased

was succumbed to injuries. In my considered view, the

prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt before the

Court below.

24) The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Ramachandrapuram as well as the learned VI Additional

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at

Rajamahendravaram, rightly appreciated the evidence on

record. Accused miserably failed to substantiate his contention

that the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge

(Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram,

suffers with any illegality, irregularity and impropriety.

25) Having regard to the above, I see no reason to

interfere with the judgment of the learned VI Additional Sessions

Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram

in Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2008.

26) In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed.

27) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately

under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court

to the trial Court and on such certification, the trial Court shall

take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against

the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.359 of 2004, dated 13.03.2008

and to report compliance to this Court.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 27.12.2022.

PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.747 OF 2009

Date: 27.12.2022

PGR