Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mohammad Hussain Mohiddin vs The State Of Ap., Rep.Byits P.P on 13 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1695 of 2011
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35
of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District
& Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati, confirming the conviction and
sentence passed against the petitioner/accused for the offences
under Section 304A, 337 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as "IPC") and Section 134(a) and (b) r/w.187 of Motor
Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "M.V.Act") by the
judgment dated 16.03.2009 in C.C.No.491 of 2007 on the file of
Court of learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Tirupati, the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal
revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.").
2. The revision case was admitted on 23.08.2011 and the
sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was
suspended vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2526 of 2011.
3. The petitioner was arrayed as accused in Cr.No.143 of
2007 of Chandragiri Police Station for the offences under
Section 304A, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134(a) and (b)
r/w.187 of M.V.Act and after thorough investigation police laid
the charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.491 of
2007 on the file of Court of learned IV Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, and after full pledged trial,
found the accused guilty for the offences under Section 304A,
337 of IPC and Section 134(a) & (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act and
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three
(3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15) days respectively and
all the sentences shall run concurrently.
4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed by
the Trial Court, the petitioner/accused filed an appeal, vide
Crl.A.No.35 of 2009, before the Court of learned VI Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Tirupati and the same was dismissed
by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
Court against the petitioner.
5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the
present criminal revision case was preferred by the
petitioner/accused.
6. Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Suresh
Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the trial Court as well first appellate Court relied
upon the testimony of interested witness and convicted the
accused, which is incorrect under law; that there is a
discrepancy among the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8;
that P.Ws.6 and 9 even not supported the case of the
prosecution and they turned hostile; that there is no proof that
petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of
accident and that mere driving of the vehicle in high speed does
not come under the rash and negligence in view of the
provisions under the act.
7. He further submits that no witness identified the accused
as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Thereby,
the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court, which
were confirmed by the first appellate Court, are liable to be set
aside.
8. As against the same, Smt.D.Prasanna Lakshmi, learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that there are concurrent
findings recorded regarding the fact that the accused was the
driver of the Tata sumo bearing No.AP 03 G 5119 at the time of
incident; that there is a clear evidence from the testimony of
P.Ws.5 and 8, which clinchingly established that the accused
was the driver of the vehicle, who drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and hit the stationed APSRTC Bus bearing
No.AP 10 Z 4925, resulting death of six (6) persons, among
them three (3) persons died at the spot and three (3) persons
died while undergoing treatment and P.Ws.5 and 8 are received
injuries, who categorically deposed that accused drove the crime
vehicle at high speed of 120 k.m. per hour at the time of
accident.
9. She further submits that the trial Court after considering
the entire material on record, rightly convicted the accused and
the same was upheld by the first appellate Court. Thereby, there
are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings
recorded by the both the Courts below.
10. Now the point that arises for determination in this
revision is "whether there is any illegality or infirmity in the
findings recorded by the Trial Court as well first Appellate
Court?"
11. To determine the above said point, this Court perused the
evidence on record and in all the prosecution examined sixteen
(16) witnesses, among them P.Ws.5 and 8, who are injured as
well direct witnesses to the incident.
12. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8 reveals that in particularly
P.W.5 deposed that on 02.05.2004, he along with other
deceased persons and injured were coming to Tirupati for
marriage proposal in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 03 5119 and
when they reached to Angarala Village at about 11.00, the
driver of the said Tata Sumo drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the stationed RTC Bus
and three persons by name Sundara Raju, Manoj Kumar and
Ammulu died on the spot and two persons by name Pooja and
Niteesh died in the hospital. He sustained injuries on his left
leg, left hand and right hand fingers. Then police shifted him
along with deceased to the hospital.
13. During the cross examination nothing was elicited to
disbelieve his testimony. On the other hand, he consistently
deposed that at the time of accident the accused drove the crime
vehicle at 100 to 120 k.m. per hour in a rash and negligent
manner. May be true, he deposed that there is a turning before
the accident place at Agnarala Village, but the driver of the
crime vehicle drove the same at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner.
14. As well P.W.8 by name K.Kavitha deposed that on
02.05.2004 at about 08.30 a.m., she along with deceased
persons, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.7, P.W.5 and L.W.10 Soundarya
along with her child went to Tirupati for marriage proposal and
when they reached to Chandragiri, the Tata Sumo vehicle
dashed one RTC Bus and three persons died on the spot and
three persons died while undergoing treatment. She sustained
injuries on mouth, teeth and face on left side under cheek and
after the accident she is facing hearing problem. She identified
the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of
accident. Nothing was elicited in her evidence to believe the
contention of the accused that he was not the driver of the
crime vehicle at the time of accident.
15. On perusal of the material on record i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.27
in particularly Ex.P.17 wound certificate of P.W.5, Ex.P.18
wound certificate of P.W.3, Ex.P.19 wound certificate of
L.W.10/Soundariya, Ex.P.20 wound certificate of P.W.7, Ex.P.21
wound certificate of P.W.6, Ex.P.22 wound certificate of P.W.8
and Ex.P.23 wound certificate of P.W.4, culminating the fact
that accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent
manner at high speed leading to accident.
16. It is a fact that it is not a head on collusion and the
manner of the accident is also not in dispute. May be true, the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is helpful, because they were in the
bus at the time of incident and they deposed that when the
driver was about to start the bus after verification, they heard a
sound from the back side of the bus and they observed that
three inmates of the Tata Sumo died on the spot.
17. May be true, P.Ws.3 and 4 could not identify the driver of
the crime vehicle, but P.Ws.5 and 8, who are the injured and
direct witnesses to the incident, categorically deposed about the
manner of the incident and identified the accused as driver of
the crime vehicle.
18. Further, P.W.9 owner of the crime vehicle deposed that he
does not know the accused, but on 01.05.2004 one Sundara
Raja Naidu (deceased) asked him for the Tata Sumo for alliance
of his second son and he voluntarily gave the vehicle to the said
deceased and on the next day he received information that his
vehicle meet with an accident.
19. Whatever facts stated by P.W.9 corroborated with the
evidence of P.Ws.5 and 8, whose evidence is cogent and
convincing and nothing found from their evidence to disbelieve
their testimony regarding manner of the accident and identity of
the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of
incident.
20. In view of the facts and circumstances, above discussion
and material placed on record, there is nothing on record to
interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the trial
Court as well first appellate Court in convicting the accused for
the offences under Section 304A, 337 of IPC and Section 134(a)
& (b) r/w.187 of M.V.Act. More so, regarding quantum of
sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused, the trial
Court take a lenient view and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment of three (3) months, one (1) month and fifteen (15)
days respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
Thereby, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent
findings recorded by the both the Courts below and no merits in
this revision. Therefore, the present revision is liable for
dismissal.
21. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
confirming the judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.35 of
2009 on the file of Court of learned VI Additional District &
Sessions Judge(FTC), Tirupati. The period of sentence, if any,
already undergone by the petitioner/accused, shall be given
setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is
directed to surrender before the learned IV Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, to serve the remaining
sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 13.12.2023
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1695 of 2011
DATE: 13.12.2023
Krs
