Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Pattapu Ravi vs The State Of A.P. Rep By Its P.P on 29 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2196 of 2011
ORDER:
This Revision is arising out of judgment dated
01.11.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.108 of 2009 on the file of
Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs and the
STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge,
Nellore, wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the
appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed
against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence
punishable under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC in the
judgment dated 15.05.2009 in C.C.No.607 of 2006 passed
by the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Nellore.
2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that: On
23.03.2006, PW2 invited her relatives and her kith and kin
to accompany her family members Muthyalamma Jathara
at Thoorpu Kanupooru to pay their offerings in connection
with their owe, that they engaged a mini lorry bearing
No.AP 26 U 456 for that purpose and the mini lorry came
to their village at midnight on 22.03.2006, that their
villagers and relatives about more than fifty in number
boarded the lorry, that himself and PW12, the cleaner and
the driver were in the Cabin of the lorry and the remaining
persons got into the body of the lorry and sat there, that on
23.03.2006, the lorry started from the village, the
accused/lorry driver drove the vehicle at a high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed a palmyrah tree
situated on the left side road margin near Dakaya Mitta at
a distance of 2 KMs from Kudithipalem village, resulted
sustained severe bleeding injuries and that Bujjamma,
Sujatha, Appani Ramanamma, Appani Seetharavamma
and Appani Rathnamma died on the spot, that the
remaining injured were shifted to Nellore Hospital that
later the injured, Uyyala Millikarjuna and Sai ram, also
died and that the accident occurred only due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver, Pattapu Ravi (the
accused herein). The Sub Inspector of Police, Indukurpet
Police Station registered Ex.P1 as a case in Crime
No.44/2006 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337
IPC.
3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined
PW.1 to PW.22 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P33. On behalf of
the accused Exs.D1 to D9 are marked, but not oral
evidence was adduced.
4. By considering the material on record, the trial Court
convicted the accused for the offence 304-A, 338 and 337
IPC and he is convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C and
sentenced him to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period
of one (01) year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,500/- in default,
to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three (03)
months.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the revision
petitioner/accused preferred an appeal before the lower
appellate Court, but the same was dismissed by confirming
the trial Court judgment.
6. Being aggrieved, the present revision has been filed
by the petitioner.
7. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor
representing the respondent-State.
8. Now the point that arises for determination in this
revision is "whether there is any flaw or illegality or
irregularity or impropriety in the findings recorded by the
trial Court as well appellate Court".
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial Court as well as appellate Court failed to consider the
uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of prosecution
and convicted the accused and the appellate Court failed to
consider that there is no fault on the part of the accused
while driving the lorry.
10. As against the same, learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor submits that it is proved that the
petitioner/accused was the driver of the mini lorry bearing
No.AP 26 U 456 on the date of accident. It is also not in
dispute that in the accident, 7 persons died and 14
persons were injured. The evidence of PW-8 and PW-20
coupled with Exs.P2 to P7 and P10 goes to show that
inquests were held over 7 persons died in the accident.
Which clearly shows that the rash and negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry i.e., petitioner herein. He
further submits that the prosecution successfully proved
the rash and negligence on the part of the accused
resulting which the accident occurred and there is direct
evidence PWs.1 to 17.
11. PW-19, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, deposed that he
inspected the crime vehicle and found that the brake
system of lorry is in good working condition and there is no
mechanical defect and the same was mentioned in the
Ex.P-9 report. He further deposed that he found the
following damage to the lorry:
i) Front wind screen broken.
ii) Left side load body completely damaged.
iii) Rear end door damaged and
iv) Left cabin glass door broken.
12. It is clearly shows that the rash and negligence on
the part of the petitioner, while driving the vehicle and
nothing left out by the trial Court as well appellate Court in
appreciating the evidence and there is a concurrent finding
on the fact by both Courts and this Court cannot upset the
findings.
13. After hearing both sides, this Court closely perused
the testimonies of witnesses. PW-1 deposed that even
though the inmates of the lorry warned the
petitioner/accused to drive the lorry slowly. But, who is in
a drunken state, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent
manner. The testimonies of PWs-1 to 17 in one voice
deposed that the accident occurred because of the rash
and negligent driving of the accused. It is also found from
the record that the petitioner/accused, who consumed
liquor at the outskirts of the village. Thereafter, drove the
lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
palmyrah tree by the side of the road.
14. PW-15 also deposed that the petitioner/accused
drove the vehicle while he was in intoxicating condition.
The evidence of PWs-1 to 17, which goes to show that the
vehicle was being driven by the accused-driver at a very
high speed in intoxicate condition.
15. More so, there was no traffic at that time and length
of the road is also wide enough at the place where the
accident occurred, which clearly shows that the lorry
dashed against the tree, which was by the side of the road
margin and the body of the lorry was damaged. When there
is much material and the same is appreciated by both the
Courts below, there is no defense for the scope to discard
the evidence.
16. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that
there are concurrent finding of the fact that the
petitioner/accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent
manner.
17. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
opinion that the orders passed by both the courts below
are unambiguous and cannot be set aside.
18. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
19. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand
closed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand
vacated.
______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 29.12.2023
KNN
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2196 of 2011
DATE: 29.12.2023
KNN
