Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
T.Chandra Sekhar Reddy Chandra Reddy vs The State Of A.P. on 12 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1203 of 2011
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 06.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.85
of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions
Judge-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, confirming
the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner by the
judgment dated 29.07.2009 in C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of
the Court of learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Srikalahasti, for the offences under Section 304-A, 337
and 338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"),
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 shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). All the injured are coolies and they came to
Anjimedu Village for their agricultural work. On
11.12.2004 at about 07.00 p.m., after completion of
their agricultural work, all of them engaged the crime
tractor cum trailer bearing No.AP 03L 5645 and 5646
and went to watch the film. Then they returned to
Ilaganuru by the same tractor and trailer.
ii). The accused drove the said tractor in a rash and
negligent manner, when they reached V.M.Palem
Village at about 01.15 a.m., the pin of the tractor was
broken, the trailer was separated from the tractor and
turned turtle. As a result, they received injuries and
all the injured were shifted to hospital by the
villagers. The accused escaped from the spot.
iii). On receipt of hospital intimation, P.W.13- S.I of
Police, Srikalahastri (Urban) Police Station, registered
a case in Cr.No.185 of 2004 and investigated into.
3. After completion of investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet
and the same was taken on file and numbered as C.C.No.121 of
2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti and after full pledged
trial, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offences
under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four (4) months
each for the respective offences and all the sentences shall run
concurrently.
4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the revision petitioner
preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.85 of 2009, before the Court
of learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District
Judge, Tirupati and the said appeal was dismissed on
06.06.2011 by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed
against the revision petitioner/accused.
5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the
present criminal revision case was preferred by the
petitioner/accused.
6. Heard Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel
attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the
respondent-State.
7. Now the point that arises for determination in this
revision is "whether there is any manifest error of law or flagrant
miscarriage of justice in the findings recorded by the first
Appellate Court by confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the trial Court against the revision petitioner?"
8. Sri Harinadh Nidamanuri, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no legal, cogent and reliable
evidence to say that there was negligence on the part of the
driver of the vehicle at the relevant time; that the undisputed
fact is that the pin attached to the trailer was broken and
unfortunately, the alleged incident was occurred, as such it
cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of the
petitioner, resulted death of a person as well injuries to ten
persons; that there was no rash and negligent manner and the
accident is the result of mechanical defect only, which is beyond
comprehension of the human being; that there is no legal
evidence to fix the liability on the petitioner and that the Courts
below have not properly appreciated the evidence on record,
resulted conviction against the accused for the said offences,
which is liable to be set aside.
9. As against the same, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned
counsel attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the
respondent submits that the Revisional Court need not reassess
or re-appreciate the entire material on record on the concurrent
findings recorded by both the Courts below; that based on the
facts this Court has limited jurisdiction in adjudicating material
lacunas and irregularities; that admittedly the petitioner was
the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time and he ought
to have taken care and he ought to have verified whether the
trailer was properly attached to the tractor or not; that the trial
Court has categorically discussed in paragraph No.12 of the
judgment regarding responsibility of the driver in failure of the
pin attached to the trailer; that all the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to
10, who are eye-witnesses-cum-injured persons, consistently
deposed that there was a speed driving of the petitioner and
even according to the accused, road on which the tractor and
trailer was moving there are ups and downs and also a culvert
and the petitioner did not reduce his speed even at the culvert,
it clearly shows the negligence on the part of the
petitioner/accused, which leads to the accident; that the
petitioner has supposed to verify whether the vehicle is in
condition or not from taking one place to another, if really the
petitioner verified the same, he would have found the link
between the tractor and trailer was in damaged condition,
thereby, there was negligence on the part of the accused in
causing the accident, resulted injuries to fifteen persons and
one person died in the incident.
10. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused
the judgments of the trial Court as well Sessions Court. The
short point that arises in this case is, whether the prosecution
has able to establish the guilt of the accused for the said
offences and there was any rashness or negligence on the part
of the driver of the crime vehicle. Rashness not only consists of
high speed, but also not taking proper care and caution.
Negligence, on the other hand, is a breach of duty cast on a
person. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the prosecution has not placed any material to
show the negligence on the part of the petitioner/driver in
breach of duty to verify whether the pin between the tractor and
trailer was proper or not. Nowhere, in the prosecution case
rather did not speak by the prosecution witnesses that the
accused/driver has not taken care while moving on the tractor
whether the trailer was properly attached to the tractor that too
while returning to their village after completion of their work.
11. It is settled law as well submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court
in a judgment reported in Dr.V.Rugmini v. State of Kerala1
held that "to sustain a charge of causing death by negligent act
it is necessary that death should have been the direct result of
the negligent act. That act must be the proximate cause,
without any other supervising act or intervention".
12. Besides that, the learned counsel for the petitioner also
brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in Kurban Hussein Mohameddali
1 1987 Crl.L.J.200
Bangawalla v. State of Maharastra2, wherein it was held
that "to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A, Indian
Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the
direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that
act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the
intervention of another's negligence. It must be the cause
causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine
qua non"
13. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that when the vehicle was moving, in particular
tractor along with trailer, while plying the vehicle, no driver is
expected to verify the pin between the tractor and trailer was
properly linked or not. Because, till such a time it was properly
linked and moving on and it may not be possible to stop the
vehicle by the accused/petitioner rather expect such a situation
to avert the accident.
14. In this case, the argument put forth by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that there was no negligence
attributed to the petitioner in driving the tractor, but he failed to
verify the chain rather link is properly done or not. Admittedly,
in the present case, there was damage to the pin, resulting
2 AIR 1965 SC 1616
trailer lost its connection with tractor and turned turtle,
thereby, one person died and ten persons received injuries.
15. The prosecution has to prove by producing the material
that there was negligence on the part of the driver or knowingly
not taken care to verify whether the link between the tractor
and trailer was proper or not at the relevant time. P.Ws.1 to 10
consistently deposed that they all after unloading the rice bags
went to watch the movie at Srikalahasti and while returning to
their village on the same vehicle and when they reached near
V.M.Palem Village at about 01.15 a.m, the pin of the tractor
attached to the trailer was broken. As a result, the trailer
attached to the tractor was separated and turned turtle. Neither
there is a direct witness nor any material to say that the
accused is responsible for breaking the pin between the tractor
and trailer, which resulted in the accident.
16. From the beginning, it is the prosecution case that there
was rash and negligent act of the driver, resulting to the
accident. But, nowhere in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 or other
evidence show that the breakage of pin to the tractor attached
to the trailer was only due to not being properly dealt with by
the accused/driver. When there is no material to find guilt of
the accused that on his negligence only the incident was
occurred because he was not taking care to see that the pin was
properly attached or not. But the other circumstances, which
clearly stated by the prosecution, even in its case or in the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10 show that on the fateful day after
unloading the load in Ilaganuru rice mill, on the same tractor
went to Srikalahasti to watch the movie and thereafter returned
to their village and in the meanwhile the incident was occurred.
Even when the tractor is with the load also nothing was
happened and while returning to their village, the incident was
said to have happened. In those circumstances, simply because
P.Ws.1 and 2, 4 to 9 deposed that accused drove the tractor in a
speedy manner, it cannot be said that he contributed to the
incident. According to the material before the trial Court as well
Sessions Court the accident occurred only due to breakage of
pin which clubbing to the tractor and trailer, but neither speed
nor negligent act of the accused.
17. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that both the Courts blow misread the evidence and did
not discuss as to how the accident was occurred and
erroneously came to conclusion that the accident occurred only
due to rash and negligent act of the driver.
18. The crux in this matter is that only due to breakage of the
pin attached in between the tractor and trailer did the incident
was occurred. For which, it cannot be attributed to the accused,
when there is no evidence to say that there is negligence on the
part of the driver for the damage of the pin, which was linked
between the tractor and trailer and due to damage of the pin
only the accident was occurred, which resulted injuries to ten
persons and one person died at the hospital while undergoing
treatment.
19. Even in the first Appellate Court also, the learned counsel
appeared for the accused submitted that there is a turning near
the scene of offence and the accident took place as bolt was
broken. P.W.16 Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the
crime vehicle, did not depose that breakage of bolt is caused
due to negligence of the driver. But he categorically deposed
that breakage of the pin which bears the weight of the trailer
may cause the break of the bolt, but in this case when the
tractor and trailer after unloading the rice bags, this accident
was occurred and the while returning to the village, the
breakage of bolt to the tractor and its trailer, is the cause of the
accident. In this case, opinion regarding mechanical defect of
vehicle has some bearing in determining the fact of cause of
accident due to breakage of pin attached between the tractor
and trailer.
20. In view of the above, admittedly, due to breakage of pin
connected in between tractor and trailer, the trailer was
separated from the tractor, resulted the incident, for which
against the petitioner/accused cannot be attributed any
negligence.
21. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the conviction and sentence rendered
by the trial Court, which was confirmed by the first appellate
Court against the present petitioner/accused, is nothing but
manifest error and miscarriage of justice, and thereby, the same
are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the present criminal
revision case is liable to be allowed.
22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed
conviction and sentence imposed against the
petitioner/accused, vide judgment dated 29.07.2009 in
C.C.No.121 of 2005 on the file of the Court of learned Additional
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti, which was
confirmed by the judgment dated 06.06.2011 in Crl.A.No.85 of
2009 on the file of the Court of learned Special Sessions Judge-
cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, are hereby set aside.
The revision petitioner/accused is acquitted of the offences
under Section 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 12.01.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1203 of 2011
DATE: 12.01.2024
Krs
