Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bhimineni Purna Chandra Rao, Guntur ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ... on 29 October, 2024
APHC010209512010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3367]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1266/2010
Between:
Bhimineni Purna Chandra Rao, Guntur Dist. ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of A P Rep By P P Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
P SAI SURYA TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Assailing the judgment dated 08.07.2010 in Crl.A.No.111
of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Sessions
Judge-cum-Family Court at Guntur, confirming the conviction
and sentence passed against the accused by the judgment dated
02.03.2010 in C.C.No.401 of 2004 on the file of the Court of
learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at
Sattenapalli, for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 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.
2. The revision case was admitted on 09.07.2010 and the
sentence imposed against the petitioner was suspended, vide
orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1827 of 2010.
3. The shorn of necessary facts are that:
i). On 09.01.2004 at about 05.30 p.m., the accused
being driver of the Auto bearing Registration No.AP 7V
5418 driven the same in rash and negligent manner at
high speed with twenty-two (22) passengers and when
they reached outskirts of Abburu Village, the front tyre
of the said auto feel into a deep pit, resulted the
passengers in the auto received multiple injuries. Then,
they were shifted to Government Hospital at Sattenapalli.
Out of the injured persons, while undergoing treatment,
one Sugunamma died on 18.01.2004.
ii). Basing on the statement of P.W.1, the Head
Constable of Sattenapalli Rural Police Station registered
a case in Cr.No.3 of 2004 under Section 337 of IPC and
investigated into and later on receipt of death intimation
of the deceased Sugunamma added Section 304-A IPC.
4. After completion of investigation, P.W.11-S.I. of Police laid
charge sheet and the same was numbered as C.C.No.401 of
2004 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class at Sattenapalli, after full-fledged trial
found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 304-A,
337 of IPC and Rule 32(iii) r/w. Section 177 of Motor Vehicle Act
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
two (2) years, three (3) months and also sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs.100/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of one (1)
month for the respective offences and all the sentences shall
run concurrently.
5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred
an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.111 of 2010, before the Court of
learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court at Guntur
and the same was partly allowed by confirming the conviction
and sentence passed by the trial Court for the offences under
Section 304(A) and 337 of IPC, while setting aside the conviction
and sentence under Rule 32(iii) r/w.177 of the Motor Vehicles
Act.
6. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the
present criminal revision case was preferred by the
petitioner/accused.
7. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri P.Sai Surya Teja, learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused and Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned
Special Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
8. 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 Trial Court
as well first Appellate Court?"
9. Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioner/accused submits that even as per
the prosecution version the incident occurred when the tyre of
the auto fell into a deep ditch, thereby, no negligence can be
attributed against the accused in causing the incident; that
except injured persons, no direct witness was examined by the
prosecution to prove the incident; that there is no legal and
reliable evidence placed on record by the prosecution before the
Courts below to make believe that prosecution proved the guilt
of the accused for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of
IPC; that the non-examination of the medical officer, who
conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased, is fatal
to the case of the prosecution; that both the Courts below failed
to appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective,
erroneously convicted the petitioner and the same is liable to be
set aside.
10. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned counsel
attached to the office of State Public Prosecutor for the
respondent submits that the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 7, who are
injured eye witnesses to the incident, shows the negligence on
the part of the accused in causing the incident; that the
testimony of P.W.9 medical officer, who treated the injured,
shows the injuries sustained by them in the incident; that
P.W.10 Motor Vehicle Inspector certified under Ex.P.17 that the
incident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the
vehicle; that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused
for the said offences beyond all reasonable doubt by examining
P.Ws.1 to 10 and producing Exs.P.1 to P.24, thereby, the
present revision has no merits.
11. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court perused
the material available on record. It is not in dispute about the
injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 7, others as well death of the
deceased in the incident. It is also not in dispute about the
identity of the accused as driver of the crime auto by the date of
incident.
12. It is the categorical testimony of P.W.1, who is said to be
injured eyewitness, that after completion of coolie work, on
09.01.2002 at about 05.30 p.m., she along with others, total
twenty-two in number, boarded the auto of the accused to go to
Abburu Village and they requested the accused to drive the
vehicle slowly. But, the accused had driven the same in a rash
and negligent manner, due to which the front tyre of the auto
fell into a deep ditch and turned turtle. Resulted, she received
bleeding injury on her head and one Sugunamma died on the
spot and nearly eighteen person received injuries. They were
shifted to Government Hospital, Sattenapalli for treatment. She
gave Ex.P.1 statement to police.
13. The testimony of P.W.1 is fully corroborated with the
testimony of P.Ws.2 to 7, who are also injured eyewitnesses to
the incident. Nothing incriminating was elicited during cross
examination to disbelieve their testimony.
14. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the accident occurred only when the tyre of the
auto fell into the pit, but not due to rash and negligent driving
of the accused. But, in view of the categorical testimony of
P.W.1 to 7, by the time of incident, the driver of the auto drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner without considering
their request to drive the same slowly, thereby, caused the
incident, as such, the said contention raised by the petitioner
has no legs to stand. More so, it is the duty of the driver of auto
to look into road condition. But, nowhere it is placed on record
to say that the driver of the crime vehicle taken care while
driving the auto when the road is in condition of full of ditches
and he ought to have taken care of road condition, but fact
remains, he did not think of the road condition nor caution
made by the passengers, who are P.Ws.1 to 7. Furthermore, as
per the testimony of P.W.10 Motor Vehicle Inspect, the accident
which occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the
vehicle under Ex.P.17 report.
15. Be that it may, on perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7,
it is suggested to them that the injured as well deceased
received injuries while travelling in a tractor and as the tractor
driver has no driving license, the auto was implicated in this
case. But, for the fact remains that, no positive evidence placed
on record to that defence when suggested to the witnesses.
16. Further on perusal of testimony of P.W.10 medical
officer, he treated the injured after the incident and issued
Exs.P.4 to P.16 wound certificates of injured, which proves the
injuries sustained by the passengers in the incident. Even on
perusal of Ex.P.24 postmortem report of deceased Sugunamma
the cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries,
which is not in dispute.
17. It is settled law as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Maharashtra v. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip
Sing Anand1, that "in exercise of revisional powers, this Court
need not undertaken in-depth and minutest reexamination of
entire evidence, when there is no error in the findings arrived by
the Trial Court as well first Appellate Court".
18. By taking into consideration of above evidence of P.Ws.1
to 11 and Exs.P.1 to P.24, the trial Court came to conclusion
that prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences
under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC, which was affirmed by the
first Appellate Court.
19. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on
facts by the Courts below, 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 the Court
below. There is no material before this Court to discard the
1 (2004) 7 SCC 659
trustworthiness of P.Ws.1 to 7, 9 to 11 and there is no material
to disbelieve the contents of Exs.P.1 to P.24.
20. All these facts go to show that both the Courts below
rightly came to conclusion that there is rash and negligence on
the part of the petitioner in causing the incident and that there
is no apparent failure on the part of the Courts below 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 offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC.
21. However, while arguing the matter, learned counsel for
the petitioner/accused submits that the accident was occurred
on 09.01.2004 and there are mitigating circumstances to reduce
the sentence imposed against the petitioner by the Courts
below. He brought to the notice of this Court a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union
Territory of Delhi)2, wherein the APEX Court considered the
facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment
2 AIR 1977 SC 892
imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month
rigorous imprisonment.
22. He also brought to the notice of this Court another
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Chander v.
State of Delhi3, wherein also the APEX Court considered the
relevant circumstances and reduced the sentence of
imprisonment to that of already undergone, but increased the
sentence of fine from Rs.500/- to Rs.700/-.
23. In this connection, it is relevant to make a mention a
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Jalan
v. State of Karnataka4, wherein the relevant observation of
Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph Nos.15 and 16 was that
"the appellant has been found to be guilty of offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC for driving rashly
and negligently on a public street and his act unfortunately
resulted in the loss of a precious human life. It was a rash and
negligent act simplicitor and not a case of driving in an
inebriated condition. Having regard to the all these facts, a
lenient view can be taken in the matter and the sentence of
imprisonment can be reduced."
3 AIR 1973 SC 2127
4(2008) 8 SCC 225
24. Even in Nagaraj v. Union of India5, the APEX Court at
paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held that "the appellant/accused has
already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence
in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral
turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury
to any human being except causing some damage to the railway
property, viz., one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence
is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons
and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion
that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by
the three Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has
already undergone by the appellant till date."
25. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana6, 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."
26. No doubt, in the present case also the incident was said
to be happened on 09.01.2004 and by this time eighteen (20)
52019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209
62019 (3) Crimes 89
years have already been lapsed, but there was a loss of one
human life and injuries sustained by twenty persons.
27. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the
above pronouncements 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, the sentence of
imprisonment is reduced to one year from two (2) years for the
offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
28. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in
part, modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against
the petitioner/accused to that of one year simple imprisonment
instead of two (2) years for the offence under Section 304-A IPC
only and the rest of the judgment dated 08.07.2010 in
Crl.A.No.111 of 2010 on the file of the Court of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court at Guntur, 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 learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class at Sattenapalli forthwith, to serve the remaining
sentence, if not, the learned Magistrate concerned shall take
steps against the petitioner.
Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
Date: 29.10.2024
Krs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1266 of 2010
(ORDER)
DATE: 29.10.2024
Krs
