Killada Arjuna , vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 4353 AP

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.606 of 2008

ORDER:

Challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2007 in Criminal

Appeal No.60 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, confirming the judgment of

conviction and sentence dated 28.10.2005 in C.C.No.67 of 2002 on

the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bheemunipatnam, this

criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this revision are

referred to as they are arrayed in C.C.No.67 of 2002.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2002 while

P.W.1 was coming from Simhachalam side on his Scooter bearing

No. AP 35 3972 along with deceased P.Maheswara Reddy as pillion

rider at about 4.30 p.m. when they reached High Way No.38,

Gummadivanipalem village, the accused being the driver of lorry

bearing No.AP31 T 9655, drove the same in a rash and negligent

driver and dashed against the scooter of P.W.1, due to which

deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. P.W.1

sustained simple injuries. Basing on the report given by P.W.1,

police registered Crime No.3 of 2002 of Anandapuram Police

Station for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1

to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. After completion of the

prosecution evidence, the petitioner was examined under section

313 Cr.P.C. and he denied incriminating material appearing

against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported

no defence evidence.

5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the

trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period one year. Aggrieved by the

same, petitioner filed Crl.A.No.60 of 2005 on the file of IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam and the

lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Assailing the

same, the present criminal revision case is filed.

6. Heard Sri A.Sreekanth Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of respondent-State.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record in its

proper perspective. He submits that the Courts below ought not to

have convicted the petitioner, as there is no corroboration to the

evidence of P.W.1. He further submits that P.W.1 did not depose

about the number of lorry in his evidence and evidence of

prosecution is riddled with contradictions and omissions. Hence,

he prayed to allow the criminal revision.

8. Per contra, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor

would submit that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the Courts below after

appreciating the entire evidence on record, convicted the appellant

and there are no grounds to interfere with conviction and sentence

imposed by the trial Court.

9. The jurisdiction of the Court under Section 397 can be

exercised so as to examine the correctness, legality or proprietary

of judgment passed by the trial court or the inferior court, as the

case may be. Though the section does not specifically use the

expression 'prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to

secure the ends of justice', the jurisdiction under Section 397 is a

very limited one. The legality, proprietary or correctness of

judgement passed by a court is the very foundation of exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 397. The jurisdiction could be exercised

where there is palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions

of law, the decision is completely erroneous or where the judicial

discretion is exercised arbitrarily.

10. Now it has to be seen whether there is any illegality or

irregularity committed by the Courts below in appreciating the

evidence on record. On a careful scrutiny of evidence on record, it

is evident that prosecution examined P.Ws.1, 3 and 6 who are eye

witnesses to the accident. However, P.Ws.3 and 6 did not support

the case of prosecution and they were declared as hostile. Now the

only evidence of P.W.1, injured witness, remains to be considered.

11. P.W.1 categorically deposed about the manner in which the

accident took place and at the time of accident, deceased was

travelling as pillion rider on the scooter. P.W.1 also identified the

accused as the driver of crime vehicle and, also deposed that due

to rash and negligent driving of accused only, the accident took

place. Even though P.W.1 was cross examined, nothing contra

could be elicited regarding negligence on the part of P.W.1 while

driving the scooter. In such case, the contention of accused that

P.W.1 while riding the scooter hit against a stationed lorry, as a

result, the accident occurred, cannot be accepted. P.W.1 also

sustained injuries in the accident and Ex.P-8 wound certificate

discloses the injuries sustained by P.W.1. The Medical Officer

opined that injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2 is

simple in nature. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy and

it can be relied upon to hold that accused is the driver of crime

vehicle and he drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and

caused the accident.

12. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the Courts

below appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and there is

no illegality or perversity in the judgments rendered by the Courts

below, which warrants interference of this Court. Hence, the

petitioner/appellant failed to make out any ground to set aside the

conviction and sentence passed against him. Hence, the criminal

revision case is liable to be dismissed. However, in view of the

submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner that the

crime is of the year 2002 and petitioner already appeared before

the concerned Courts all these years and suffered mental agony

and he urged the Court to modify the sentence of imprisonment to

the extent of period that has been already undergone by

petitioner/appellant.

13. In the result, the conviction recorded against the

petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections

304-A and 337 of IPC in the judgment dated 28.10.2005 in

C.C.No.67 of 2002 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bheemunipatnam, as confirmed in the judgment dated 30.11.2007

in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2005 on the file of IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, is confirmed.

However, the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the extent of

period already undergone by appellant, while maintaining the fine.

14. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case

stands dismissed.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous petitions, shall

stand closed.

_________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

21st July, 2022

PVD