Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kurubva Madda Anjineyulu, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 4 July, 2024
APHC010676862011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1778/2011
Between:
Kurubva Madda Anjineyulu, ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Assailing the Judgment, dated 26.08.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.18of
2011on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur,
confirming the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner/accused
by Judgment, dated 24.01.2011 in C.C.No.287 of 2007 on the file of the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda, for the offences
under Sections 337, 338, 304-A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as "IPC"), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under
Section 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
2. The revision case was admitted on 05.09.2011 and the sentence of
imprisonment imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide orders in
Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2669 of 2011.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 06.02.2007 at 1.15 P.M., near Vemuleti palli road cross on
Kothacheruvu - Dharmavaram road, Kothacheruvu Village, the
accused who is driver of Auto bearing No.AP 02 W 4357, drove his
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost
control of the vehicle, due to which, the auto turned turtle on the
roadside. In the said accident, one Balija Chinna Vemakka, aged 45
years, who was travelling in the said Auto died on the spot. Remaining
passengers i.e., PW1-Tadimarri Mangala Krishnaiah, PW3-B.
Sunandamma, PW4-Balija Umadevi, PW5-Yerukala Ramanamma, PW6-
Kapu Kalavathi and PW7-Balija Naraisimhulu sustained injuries. On the
report given by PW1, police registered a case. PW15-S.I of Police took
up investigation and arrested the accused.
ii). After completion of investigation, PW15-Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kothacheruvu Police Station, filed charge sheet and the same was
numbered as C.C.No.287 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukondaand trial was conducted
and found the Accused guilty of the offences under Sections 304-A,
338 and 337 of IPC and accordingly, for the offence under Section
304-A IPC, he is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one
year, and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- to the family of the deceased, in
default of payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment
for one month. Relating to the offence under Section 338 IPC, the
accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months,
and pay fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine, he has to
undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. Relating to the offence
under Section 337 IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for three months, and pay fine of Rs.1000/, in default of
payment of fine, he has to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 days.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal,
vide Crl.A.No.18 of 2011 before the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Hindupur, and the same was dismissed, vide judgment, dated
26.08.2011, by confirming the conviction and sentence, dated 24.01.2011,
passed against the Appellant/Accused by the trail Court for the offences under
Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.
5. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present
criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused.
6. Heard SriK. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused
and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant 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?"
8. Sri K. Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset,
submits that the Courts below have not properly perceived the vital aspect
that there is discrepancy with respect to name of petitioner in Ex.P12 FIR and
charge sheet filed by the police. He further stated that the original statement
of PW1 is not marked. PW1 injured itself did not support the case of the
prosecution. There is absolutely no negligence on the part of the petitioner in
commission of accident, but it is only due to very narrow road and remote
area. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of
Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and prays this Court to allow the revision.
9. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent submits that the facts of the case clearly
constitute an offence under Section 304-A IPC. Had the petitioner be cautious
in driving the vehicle, the accident would not have occurred and lead to death
of one passenger and some others receiving severe injuries. The evidence on
record is positive that the rash and negligent act of the accused is proximate
cause for death of the deceased. There is direct nexus between death of the
deceased and the rash and negligent act of the accused. The eyewitnesses
clearly stated that the accused is driver of the auto and he drove the auto in a
rash and negligent manner at high speed and resulted in accident. It is further
submitted that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and
convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 338
and 337 IPC and the Appellate Court has also rightly came to a conclusion
that the accused is found guilty of the said offences and accordingly
confirmed the conviction passed by the trial Court. Since the negligence is
duly proved by the prosecution, the petitioner is not entitled for reduction of
sentence. He prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, after careful perusal
of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival
contentions raised, the case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused
who is driver of auto, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with
high speed and lost control over the vehicle, due to which, the auto turned
turtle on the road side, resulting, one person died on the spot and others
received injuries who boarded the auto. In support of its case, the
prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to P15.
11. It is not in dispute that accident had occurred and in the said accident,
one person died and others received injuries. PWs 3 to 7 who are travelling in
the auto and got injured in the said accident in one voice have spoken the
manner in which the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the
accused. Their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence i.e.,
Ex.P9 to P11 Wound Certificates. Ex.P15 is Postmortem Report of the
deceased which clearly reveals that the deceased sustained fracture of
occipital bone brain having 80 ML of blood and she died due to shock and
hemorrhage, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW17 who conducted
postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. Whereas, from Ex.P5 M.V.
Report, it can be asserted that the accident was not due to any mechanical
defects of the crime vehicle. Considering all these facts, the trial Court as well
first Appellate Court recorded concurrent findings holding that the Appellant
has committed the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC.
12. Now, the very objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the name of the accused in F.I.R is mentioned as Boya Manda
Anjaneylulu, whereas, in charge sheet it had been mentioned as Kuruba
Manda Anjaneyulu. But, as reasoned by the trial Court as well the first
Appellate Court that all the injured witnesses who are said to be eyewitnesses
to the alleged accident clearly identified the accused as driver of auto and he
drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high-speed resulting death
of a woman and injuries to others. It is not the case of the petitioner that he
is not the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., auto at the time of accident nor he
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting accident.
13. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
road is very narrow and which resulted in accident, whereas Ex.P13 Rough
Sketch shows that the road is of 22 feet width and can easily accommodate
heavy vehicle also. In such circumstances, the ground taken by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is unrelenting.
14. Moreover, it is for the accused to establish that though he had taken at
most caution and care while driving the vehicle, the accident had occurred.
Even when the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
in reference to the evidence brought on record by the State, the
Appellant/accused denied the same, but never gave any account to such
accident.
15. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the trial Court as well Sessions Court categorically held that the
testimony of prosecution witnesses clearly goes to show that the
petitioner/accused committed offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337
IPC.
16. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the
Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not
expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest
error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below and there is no material
before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses.
17. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below rightly came to
conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish offences under Sections
304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC against the petitioner/accused and that there is no
apparent failure on the part of the Trial Court as well Sessions Court in
appreciating the evidence on record or to arrive at a conclusion that
prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the said offences. In these
circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no
perversity or flaw in the findings recorded by both the Courts below in
convicting the accused for the said offences.
18. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused submits that the offence was said to be occurred on
06.02.2007 and the petitioner/accused is now aged about a senior citizen and
having children and wife and hence, prays to take a lenient view.
19. In Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana 1 , the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held at paragraph No.2 that "they are not inclined to interfere on the
merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that
the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send
the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice."
20. No doubt, in the present case also the offence said to be taken place on
06.02.2007 and by this time seventeen (17) years have already been lapsed.
21. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice,
2019 (3) Crimes 89
this Court is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the
accused.
22. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part, modifying
the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that
of the petitioner/accused shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of
three (3) months each for each offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338
and 337 IPC. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently. The rest of
the Judgment, dated 26.08.2011 in Crl.A.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur, shall stands confirmed.
The period of sentence, if any, already undergone by the petitioner/accused,
shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused is
directed to surrender before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Penukonda to serve the sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate
concerned shall take steps against the petitioner.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Copy of this order shall be marked to the trial Court concerned.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 04.07.2024
ARB
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1778 of 2011
DATE: 04.07.2024
ARB
