C.Balakrishnaiah vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2012 AP

         HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.548 OF 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is

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

No.31 of 2007, on the file of the Court of III Additional Sessions

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

challenging the judgment therein, dated 30.03.2009, where under

the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal

Appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against

the accused in C.C. No.96 of 2005, dated 09.02.2007, on the file of

the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Sathyavedu (for

short, 'the trial Court') for the offence under Section 304-A of the

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

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

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

convenience.

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

Nagalapuram Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No.24 of

2005 under Section 304-A IPC R/w. Section 3/181 of the Motor

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

Vehicles Act alleging in substance that accused is resident of

Rajulakandriga Village, Nagalapuram Mandal, Chittoor District.

He is driver of Tractor No.AP03V527 and Trailer bearing

No.AP03V479. De-facto complainant - G. Subbalakshmamma is

the wife of the deceased. On 04.08.2005 at 02:30 p.m. near

Endetamma Temple, Vajjavarikandriga Village, accused being the

driver of Tractor No.AP03V527 and Trailer bearing No.AP03V479

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed

with load of soil. Labourers are sitting on the load of soil to go to

Rajulakandriga Village. When the tractor reached the said place,

accused lost control over his vehicle and suddenly applied the

break. As a result G. Munaswamy (deceased) fell down from the

load of soil and the trailer ran over his abdomen and trunk of the

deceased and caused cut injury and crush injuries on the body of

the deceased and the deceased died on the spot. Accused had the

driving license but it was lapsed on 04.03.2005. The vehicle stood

in the name of G. Chenchuraju and he died. So, no action could

be taken against the owner. On receipt of the report from LW.1 -

G. Subbalakshmamma, the case in Crime No.24 of 2005 for the

offence under Section 304-A IPC was registered and investigated

into. During investigation, six witnesses were examined. The

inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased on

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

04.08.2005 at 03:30 to 05:30 p.m. and the dead body of the

deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. Investigating

Officer arrested the accused on 08.08.2005 at 10:45 a.m. and sent

him for remand. The Medical Officer - LW.9 conducted autopsy

over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased

appears to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to multiple

injuries. LW.10 - Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime

vehicle and opined that the accident was not due to any

mechanical defect. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sathyavedu

took cognizance of the case under the above provisions of law.

After appearance of the accused and after complying the necessary

formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., accused was examined

under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the allegations, pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To bring home the guilt against the accused, the prosecution

before the Court below examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-7.

6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was

subjected to examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C for which he

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

denied the incriminating circumstances and did not let in any

defence evidence.

7. The learned Magistrate, Sathyavedu, on hearing both sides

and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section

304-A IPC and convicted him under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. After

questioning him about the quantum of sentence, the learned

Magistrate sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-A

IPC.

8. Felt aggrieved of the same, he filed Criminal Appeal No.31 of

2007 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati,

which came to be dismissed on merits. Further felt aggrieved of

the same, the unsuccessful accused in C.C. No.96 of 2005 and

un-successful appellant in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2007

preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.

9. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent

findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

Sathyavedu and the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,

Tirupati.

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

arises for consideration is as to whether the judgment in Criminal

Appeal No.31 of 2007, dated 30.03.2009, on the file of the Court of

III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati suffers with any illegality,

irregularity and impropriety and whether there are any grounds to

interfere with the impugned judgment?

11. POINT: Sri P. Rajesh, learned counsel, representing learned

counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that both the

Courts below erroneously convicted the revision petitioner. Motor

Vehicle Inspector was not examined by the prosecution. To prove

the negligent act of the accused, the Courts below relied upon the

evidence of the interested witnesses. There was no test

identification parade conducted before the Court below to identify

the accused. He would further submit that now the revision

petitioner is aged about 60 years and the Court may take lenient

view in the case of dismissal of the Revision for any valid reasons.

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

learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that both the Courts

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

below rightly believed the evidence of direct witnesses to the

occurrence and with cogent reasons convicted the revision

petitioner. The evidence adduced by the prosecution before the

Court below is cogent and trustworthy and as such Criminal

Revision Case is liable to be dismissed.

13. PW.1 is the husband of the deceased, who lodged Ex.P-1

having learnt about the incident. PW.2 is a direct witness to the

occurrence, who claimed to have travelled in the offending vehicle.

Similarly, PWs.3 and 4 are also direct witnesses who claimed to

have travelled in the offending vehicle. PW.5 is the Medical Officer

who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.6

is the inquest panchayatdar for conducting inquest over the dead

body of the deceased. PW.7 did not support the case of the

prosecution. PW.8 is the Investigating Officer.

14. Turning to the testimony of PW.1, wife of the deceased, she

deposed that the deceased Munaswamy is her husband. 8 months

ago, her husband went to coolie works on a tractor for

transporting manure heap. It belonged to one Prasad who is

inhabitant of their village. Accused was the driver of the Tractor.

At about 12:00 noon, she came to know that her husband met

with an accident and died on the spot through Chinnabba. Then,

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

she and others went to the scene of offence and found the dead

body. Police took her report at the spot. Ex.P-1 is the report. Later,

the dead body was shifted to Sathyavedu Community Health

Centre for post-mortem examination.

15. PW.2 deposed that she knows the deceased Munaswamy.

On 04.08.2005 at 06:00 a.m. herself, deceased Munaswamy,

Chinnabba and Balaji went for coolie works in the Tractor.

Accused is the driver of Tractor. While they were returning to the

house for lunch in a tractor with load of gravel, by sitting on the

said gravel, the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent

manner at the turning, due to which the deceased fell on the road.

As the accused did not control the tractor, the deceased fell down

and the trailer ran over the body of the deceased and the deceased

sustained bleeding injuries all over his body and died on the spot.

Police examined her and recorded her statement.

16. PW.3 deposed that he knows the deceased Munaswamy. On

04.08.2005 at about 08:00 a.m., himself, Mani, deceased

Munaswamy and Chinnabba went for loading earth in a Tractor

bearing No.AP03V527, driven by driver Balakrishnaiah, accused.

At 02:30 p.m. while they were coming with load of mud, he

Chinnabba, Mani and deceased were sitting on the load. At the

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

place called as Endetamma temple, the tractor was turned by the

accused. Munaswamy fell down and the rear tyre of the trailer ran

over him and he died on the spot. Due to fastness of the vehicle

the deceased died in the accident. He intimated the incident to

PW.2 and LW.1.

17. The evidence of PW.4 is that on 04.08.2005 he,

Munaswamy, Balaji and Mani went for transportation as coolies in

a tractor which was driven by the accused. At 02:00 p.m he and

others were coming with the load in the tractor. At the turning

near the temple of Endetamma, the driver drove the tractor in a

high speed as a result the deceased fell down. The left rear tyre of

the trailer ran over him as a result he died. He, PW.2 and others

informed about the incident in the Village.

18. Coming to the evidence of PW.5, he conducted autopsy over

the dead body of the deceased and the cause of death is

haemorrhage shock due to multiple injuries to ribs sternum spinal

column and viscera. Ex.P-2 is the post-mortem certificate issued

by him.

19. PW.6 is the inquest panchayatdar, who supported the case

of the prosecution.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

20. PW.7 did not support the case of the prosecution.

21. As seen from the cross-examination part of PW.2, she

deposed that on that day they went for three trips in the tractor.

Accused was the driver for all the three trips. The accident took

place at the time of last trip only. The deceased belongs to her

caste. She denied that the deceased fell on the road without taking

any care and that there is no rash and negligence on the part of

the driver.

22. As evident from the cross-examination of PWs.3 and 4,

accused agitated that he is not the driver of the offending vehicle.

It is to be noticed that accused did not challenge the testimony of

PW.2 on the ground that he was not the driver of the offending

vehicle at the time of accident but he suggested to PW.2 that the

deceased fell on the road without taking any care and there is no

rash and negligence on the part of driver but, curiously for the

reasons best known, before PWs.3 and 4, he put forth a suggestion

that he is not the driver of the offending vehicle.

23. PWs.2 to 4 have no reason to depose false against the

accused. There are no omissions, discrepancies or contradictions

elicited during the course of cross-examination of PWs.2 to 4.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

PWs.2 to 4 were the agricultural coolies. They categorically

testified that on the date of incident, they went for coolie works

and while they were travelling on the load in the trailer, the

accused was the driver of the offending vehicle. So, when that is

the situation, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner

that there was no test identification parade conducted deserves no

merit. When PWs.2 to 4 had prior acquaintance with the accused,

there was no question of conducting any test identification parade.

Both the Courts below dealt with this aspect appropriately. The

cause of death was established by the prosecution by examining

the Medical Officer. As evident from the rough sketch, marked as

Ex.P-6, there was a turning at the place of occurrence. So, the

allegation of the prosecution is that though the tractor and trailer

reached to the turning, accused did not slow down the vehicle and

with the same speed turned the tractor as such the deceased, who

sat on the load, fell down on the road. The ocular evidence of

PWs.2 to 4 coupled with Ex.P-6 quietly proved the allegations

against the prosecution. Apart from that when the agricultural

coolies sat on the load of the tractor and when there was a curve,

the accused being the driver ought to have driven the vehicle in a

careful manner by slowing down the vehicle.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

24. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, the

contention of the accused before the Court below that he was not

the driver of the offending vehicle is an afterthought at the time of

examination of PWs.3 and 4. Apart from this, the evidence on

record amply proves beyond reasonable doubt that he was driver

of the offending vehicle. The act of the accused in driving the

vehicle in high speed though the tractor was nearing to a turn or

curve amply proves that he driven the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner. Though the speed of the vehicle was not the

criteria to decide the rash and negligent act but the thing is that

there may be negligence when a particular driver was driving the

vehicle with less speed. There may not be negligence when a

particular driver was driving the vehicle with high speed. So, the

criterion is rash and negligent act. The rash and negligent act

against the accused is that he driven the vehicle in high speed

though the vehicle was nearing to a curve. He did not slow down

the speed of the vehicle and with the same speed he drove the

tractor which ultimately caused the death of the deceased. In my

considered view, the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 amply proves the rash

and negligent act against the accused. Both the Courts below with

cogent reasons found favour with the case of the prosecution. The

judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Criminal

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

Appeal No.31 of 2007, dated 30.03.2009, does not suffer with any

illegality, irregularity or impropriety.

25. Turning to the contention of revision petitioner that now the

revision petitioner is aged about 60 years as such the Court may

take a lenient view, admittedly the Court below imposed Rigorous

Imprisonment for two years against the accused with fine of

Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

This Revision is pending since the year 2009. Having regard to the

overall facts and circumstances and looking into the submissions

made on behalf of the revision petitioner, and looking into the age

of the revision petitioner, I am of the considered view that the ends

of justice will meet if the Rigorous Imprisonment of two years

imposed against the accused in C.C. No.96 of 2005 is reduced to

that of one year. Hence, Criminal Revision Case is liable to be

allowed only in part so as to modify the sentence.

26. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part

by reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of two years

imposed against the accused to that of one year and the rest of the

judgment in Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2007 stands confirmed.

AVRB,J Crl.R.C. No.548/2009

27. 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

24.04.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take

necessary steps to carry out the remainder of sentence, if any,

imposed against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No.96 of 2005,

dated 09.02.2007, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Sathyavedu and report compliance to this Court. A

copy of this order be placed before the 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: 18.04.2023 DSH