Kommera Ramesh vs The State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 4330 Tel

           THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.192 OF 2015

ORDER:

This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/appellant/

accused against the judgment and sentence passed by the court of I-

Additional Session Judge, Warangal dated 4-2-2015 in Criminal Appeal

No.52 of 2014 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court

of the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal dated

6-5-2014 in CC No.367 of 2011 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that the petitioner/accused

was working as a driver on APSRTC hired bus bearing No.AP 36 X 9650.

The deceased was working as Asst. Sub Inspector of Police in Geesugonda

Police Station. On 10-11-2011, the deceased went to Regional Transport

Authority Warangal situated at Hanamkonda to collect Motor Vehicle

Inspector's reports. After collecting the said reports, at about 3:00 PM

while he was crossing the road in front of Swapnika Matching Center,

Nayeem nagar, Hanamkonda, the petitioner, who was the driver of the RTC

bus plying between Narsampet to Karimnagar, coming from Karimnagar

side hit the deceased from his behind in a rash and negligent manner, due to

which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. PW's.2 & 3, who happened to Dr.GRR,J

be at the scene of offence shifted the deceased to MGM Hospital,

Warangal, where he succumbed to injuries at 4:00 PM while undergoing

treatment. The wife of the deceased lodged a report. The same was

registered as Crime No.457 of 2011 by the HC 1451 of Hanamkonda

Traffic Police Station. The Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence,

conducted a crime detail form in the presence of panch witnesses. He

visited the mortuary and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased

in the presence of panchas on 11-11-2011, got the dead body photographed

and got it subjected to post-mortem examination. On 14-11-2011, the

owner of the crime vehicle produced the accused before the Inspector. On

verifying the identity of the accused, he was arrested and after collecting

the PME report, the Inspector filed charge sheet against the accused for the

offence under Section 304-A IPC.

3. The VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

had taken cognizance of the case and conducted trial. The prosecution got

examined PW's.1 to 11 and got marked Ex P1 to P9. No defence evidence

was adduced.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record,

the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A Dr.GRR,J

IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and

fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 1

month.

5. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused

preferred appeal. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal on

re-appreciating the evidence dismissed the appeal, confirming the

conviction and sentence passed by the VI Additional JFCM, Warangal.

6. Aggrieved further, the accused preferred this revision case

contending that the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge was illegal,

improper and incorrect. He erred in confirming the conviction of the

petitioner under Section 304-A IPC even though there was no sufficient

material available on record. He erred in placing reliance on the interested

testimony of PW's.2 & 3. The ingredients to constitute the offence under

Section 304-A IPC were not made out by the prosecution. The appellate

court mechanically dismissed the appeal confirming the sentence passed by

the trial court without appreciating the evidence independently. The learned

Judge failed to see that the prosecution witnesses did not speak about rash

and negligent driving, there was no evidence to show that the petitioner

was driving the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. There were Dr.GRR,J

several discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The

prosecution failed to examine the owner of the crime vehicle and the

investigating officer, which was fatal to the case. The learned Judge ought

to have seen that there was possibility of contributory negligence by the

deceased to the accident and prayed to allow the revision by setting aside

the order of I Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the

learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended in a

similar manner as raised by him in the grounds for revision.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of the

courts below.

10. Now the point for consideration is whether there is any illegality

or impropriety in the judgment of the I Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal to

set aside the same?

11. The scope of the revision is very narrow. The words in the statute

limit it to the examination whether or not the order under revision is

according to law. The findings of facts cannot be disturbed. The court while Dr.GRR,J

calling for the record u/S 397 CrPC is expected to examine the records for

the purpose of satisfying itself about the legality, propriety and correctness

of the order passed and also about the regularity of the proceedings.

12. Though the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended

that the appellate court had not appreciated the evidence independently, on

a perusal of the record, it would disclose that the appellate court considered

the evidence of PW's.2 & 3 independently, discussed the same and

considered their presence quite probable, natural and that their evidence

was consistent with each other and as such believed their presence at the

scene of offence. The appellate court gave reasons to disbelieve the

contention of the appellant that PW's 2 &3 were planted by police to help

the family members of the deceased. Both the trial court as well as the

appellate court considered that the explanation given by PW's 2 &3 for

their presence at the time and place of accident was quite probable and no

malafides were imputed by the accused against PW's 2 &3 for their

speaking against him.

13. The courts below also considered that the place of accident was a

busy place and that the accused drove the bus at high speed at the said

place which would amount to rashness, which was an essential ingredient Dr.GRR,J

to prove the offence under Section 304-A of IPC on the part of the accused.

As the bus hit the deceased from his behind, the courts observed that, had

the accused been cautious and vigilant in driving the bus, he could have

averted the accident. The crossing of the road by the pedestrians must be

visible to the driver of the bus and he could have taken a little bit of

precaution to avoid the accident. As the appellant failed to take such

caution, it would reveal rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver

of the bus.

14. With regard to the identity of the accused, both the courts below

relied upon the evidence of PW 8, the conductor of the bus, apart from the

evidence of PW's 2 &3 and also on Ex P6, the Conductors Statistical

Return.

15. The non examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal to

the prosecution case, as he reported to be died. The trial court also observed

that no important omissions and contradictions were elicited in the

evidence of the witnesses to confront the same to the investigating officer

so as to consider that it resulted in prejudice to the accused.

Dr.GRR,J

16. No defence of contributory negligence was taken by the accused

during the trial. It was not even suggested to the witnesses that the deceased

suddenly crossed the road or that he was negligent and contributed to the

accident. No defence witnesses were examined by the accused to prove the

said fact.

17. The sentence awarded by the trial court is only simple

imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section

304-A IPC, as affirmed by the appellate court, does not seem to be severe

as contended by the petitioner.

18. Hence, this court does not find any illegality or impropriety in

the order of the courts below to set aside the same. As such, the point is

answered accordingly dismissing the revision confirming the orders of the

courts below.

19. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

conviction and sentence passed by the court of VI Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Warangal dated 6-5-2014 in CC No.367 of 2011

for the offence under Section 304-A IPC as confirmed by the court of

I-Additional Session Judge, Warangal dated 4-2-2015 in Criminal Appeal Dr.GRR,J

No.52 of 2014. The bail granted to the petitioner - accused during the

pendency of the revision shall stand cancelled. The petitioner - accused

shall surrender forthwith before the Court below, and suffer the sentence,

as confirmed by this Court. In the event he fails to do so, the Court below

shall initiate steps in accordance with law to apprehend and incarcerate him

for the confirmed sentence.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall, stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J August 26, 2022 KTL