Mohd. Gafoor Ali Gaffar Ali, Medak ... vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 86 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.20 of 2015

ORDER:

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

aggrieved by the judgment of the VIII Additional District and

Sessions Court at Medak passed in Crl.A.No.76 of 2014 dated

08.01.2015 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence

passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet in

C.C. No.74 of 2010 dated 27.06.2014.

2. The petitioner herein was tried for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC in C.C. No.74 of 2010 by the learned

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Andole at Jogipet.

3. The case of the prosecution was that the accused was driver of

the crime vehicle i.e., APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 Z 6732. On

20.07.2009 at 9.00 A.M., the complainant, the driver of the lorry

bearing No.MH 26 7400 lodged a report to Police stating that on

19.07.2009 at 8.00 P.M., he got loaded wheat at Degloor and started

to go to Patancheru along with the lorry cleaner namely Shaik Ilias

and when his lorry reached the outskirts of Taddanpally village at

Sangareddy-Nanded road on 20.07.2009 in the morning hours, the

right side tyre of his lorry got punctured. At 6.30 A.M., on

20.07.2009 while the lorry cleaner Shaik Ilias was fitting jack to

remove the punctured tyre, the accused drove the said APSRTC bus of

Sangareddy bus depot bearing No.AP10Z 6732 while coming from Dr.GRR,J

Jogipet side in rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed

against his stationed lorry and there pushed it about 15 feet ahead and

stopped, due to which Shaik Ilias suffered severe injuries and died on

the spot. The driver of the bus and several other passengers in that

bus also sustained injuries in the said accident. The said report was

registered as Cr.No.93 of 2009 under Sections 304-A, 337 IPC. The

police visited the scene of offence and prepared scene of offence

panchanama and rough sketch in the presence of mediators. They also

got inspected the crime vehicle bus by the Motor Vehicle Inspector,

Sangareddy on 21.07.2009. The Motor Vehicle Inspector gave a

report to the effect that the accident was not due to any mechanical

defects of the bus. On completion of investigation and after collecting

the post-mortem report of the deceased and wound certificates of

injured, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the

offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC.

4. The prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.42 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.62. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused.

On analysis of the said evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Andole at Jogipet came to the conclusion that the

petitioner/accused was responsible for the said accident and convicted

him for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 IPC vide his

judgment dated 27.06.2014 and sentenced him to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC

and further sentenced him to suffer a simple imprisonment for a Dr.GRR,J

period of three months for the offence under Section 337 IPC and to

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence

under Section 338 IPC and directed all the sentences to run

concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the

accused preferred an appeal. The said appeal was numbered as

Crl.A.No.76 of 2014 and decided by the VIII Additional District and

Sessions Court at Medak and the learned Judge dismissed the said

appeal confirming the finding of conviction and sentence passed by

the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jogipet in C.C. No.74 of 2010.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/appellant/accused

preferred this revision case contending that judgments of both the

courts below were erroneous and incorrect, the findings were not

based on material on record. The evidence of the prosecution

witnesses was not consistent and corroborating with each other with

regard to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner at the time of the

accident and also with regard to the identity of the petitioner as driver

of the crime vehicle. The courts below had committed an error in

accepting the testimony of prosecution witnesses which was

inadmissible, all the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and did not

support the case of the prosecution, none of the witnesses identified

the petitioner and also did not depose that the petitioner drove the

RTC bus with high speed in rash and negligent manner and caused

accident. The courts below ought to have scrutinized the evidence of Dr.GRR,J

the prosecution witnesses in a legal manner. There were several

weaknesses in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which had

been over looked by the courts below. Non examination of MVI was

fatal, there were material contradictions and omissions in the evidence

of the witnesses and prayed to set aside the judgment of conviction

and sentence passed by the courts below.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner,

the learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State and perused the

material placed on record.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued on the

same lines of the grounds of his revision.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of the

courts below that they were on sound grounds and would need no

interference.

10. As this is a revision case, this Court has to examine the

correctness, legality or propriety of the proceedings before the Courts

below whether they acted within the bounds of their authority as per

the principles of law. This Court has to see whether the findings were

recorded based on evidence or whether the material evidence is

ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely.

The object of the revision is to set right any patent defect or an error

of jurisdiction or law or perversity which has crept in the proceedings.

Dr.GRR,J

11. The learned revision petitioner contended that almost all the

prosecution witnesses turned hostile and both the courts convicted the

appellant without observing the evidence. On perusal of the record, it

was observed that P.W.2 to 10, 12 to 19, 31, 32 to 34 were declared as

hostile as they had not stated that the crime vehicle was proceeding in

rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident. The learned

Magistrate considering the evidence of P.Ws.20, 21, 22 to 25, 29, 30

and that of 38 who stated about the rash and negligent driving of the

accused came to the conclusion that the bus was being driven with

high speed at the time of the accident. Thus, though some of the

witnesses turned hostile, some of them supported the prosecution case

and there is no error committed by the courts below for taking into

consideration the evidence of the witnesses, who supported the

prosecution case.

12. Apart from the oral evidence, the courts below relied upon the

scene of offence panchanama marked as Ex.21 and rough sketch

marked as Ex.P.22 and the evidence of panch witness examined as

P.W.28 wherein he stated that he found brake marks to the length of

12 meters behind the bus and as per the contents of the Ex.P.21, the

crime vehicle rammed for about 5 feet into the lorry and that the front

body of the bus was severely damaged and the wheat, which was

stocked in the lorry spread on the road and even fell in the front side

of the bus. Ex.P.21 was showing that there were tyre marks for about

15 feet behind the bus. As per the Ex.P.21, the width of the road at Dr.GRR,J

the scene was 25 feet and the right side of the lorry's front tyre was at

a distance of 6 feet 9 inches from the middle of the road, which would

indicate that the said lorry was parked on left side of the road partly

on the road and partly on the mud road. Ex.P.21 would show that the

wind screen glasses of the crime vehicle were broken, the radiator,

door and steering were damaged and all the seats in the bus were bent

towards the front side. Ex.P.22, rough sketch, was indicating that the

back portion of the crime vehicle was stopped in the middle of the

road and its front portion was rammed into the stationed lorry. It also

indicated that the crime vehicle was completely driven towards the

stationed lorry, parked on the left side of road. Thus, taking into

consideration all these observations noted in Exs.P.21 and P.22 came

to the conclusion that the crime vehicle was being driven in a rash and

negligent manner and with high speed.

13. The appellate Court also observed at para 42 of its judgment,

which reads as under:

"42. The witnesses travelling in the bus might not have watched or assessed the extent of speed. From the circumstances of the case, we have to infer the nature of driving. PW-1 stated in his evidence that in high speed bus was driven by the accused and dashed his stationed lorry. He also further stated that the lorry was pushed ahead about 15 feet due to that impact. This impact is relevant and important factor to assess the speed in which RTC bus dashed the lorry. It is to be noted that whether the statement of PW-1 is believable and it is a fact that bus after dashing the lorry pushed to an extent of 15 feet. If it Dr.GRR,J

were true, it can be reasonably held that the bus was driven in great speed and uncontrolled speed and dashed the lorry without taking steps to avoid the accident and due to such impact loaded lorry pushed head to an extent of 15 feet. The prosecution relied on scene observation panchanama and rough sketch in that regard. Men may lie but material will not lie. Ex.P.21 scene observation report recites that there was a lorry bearing No.MH-26-7400 and on it APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-10Z-6732 which intruded 5 feet and front portion of bus was crushed and wheat bags were also crushed and wheat was fallen on road. It is also recited that behind the bus there were tyre marks to a length of 15 feet. So, it is very clear that investigating officer/PW-41 and panch witnesses found that behind the bus tyre marks to a length of 15 feet. It means that after dashing the lorry, bus went to a length of 15 feet pushing the lorry and that is why such tyre marks were appeared."

Thus, both the Courts below had not only relied upon the evidence of

the witnesses, who stated before the Court about the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. RTC bus but

also taking into consideration the circumstantial evidence as noted in

the scene of offence Panchanama and rough sketch, came to an

opinion about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the

driver of the RTC bus (petitioner/accused). As such, I find no

illegality or impropriety in the order of the Courts below on this point.

14. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner was that the evidence of the witnesses is not

consistent and corroborating with regard to the identity of the Dr.GRR,J

petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle. The trial court stated in

its judgment that P.Ws.2 to 10, 12, 21, 32 to 34 and 38 failed to

identify the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle though stated

about the incident and their sustaining injuries. These are the

witnesses, who travelled in the crime vehicle at the time of the alleged

accident. The trial Court also observed that some other passengers,

who were examined as P.Ws.11, 22 to 26 and 29, 30 and 39, who

were also cited as the eye witness narrated about the accident and

about their sustaining injuries along with other passengers in the bus

and also identified the accused as the driver of their bus.

15. Apart from the evidence of these witnesses, the court relied

upon the evidence of P.W.31, conductor of the crime vehicle, who

stated that the accused was the driver of the said bus. The court

considered his evidence as most appropriate and authentic to prove

that the accused was on board on the crime vehicle at the time of the

incident. Considering the evidence of complainant, P.W.1 and

P.W.31, conductor of the crime vehicle, and the evidence of P.Ws.11,

22 to 26 and 29, 30 and 39, the court below came to the conclusion

that the petitioner/accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the

time of the accident. Thus, there was ample evidence on record with

regard to the identity of the petitioner as the driver of the crime

vehicle. As such, I do not find any merit in the contention of the

learned counsel for the revision petitioner on this aspect also.

Dr.GRR,J

16. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner was that non examination of the MVI was fatal due

to his non-examination, the court was not in a position to know

whether the alleged accident was caused due to any mechanical

defect. As per the charge-sheet, the crime vehicle was inspected by

the MVI, Sangareddy, on 21.07.2009, the next day after the accident

and he gave a report to the effect that the accident was not due to any

mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. The said report was marked

as Ex.P.61 on consent. The trial court relied upon the Division Bench

judgement of this court in Chinthala Veerabhadra Rao Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh1, wherein it was held that when a document is

admitted in evidence under Section 294(1) Cr.P.C. and no objection is

taken as to the admission of the document, the examination of the

author of such document is not required and if that document was

marked in the case, it is not necessary to examine its author to prove

the contents of such document. The trial court also taking into

consideration that no defence was taken by the accused that the

accident was caused due to failure of the brakes or any other

mechanical defects, rightly held that non examination of MVI was not

fatal. I completely agree with the judgment of the trial court on this

aspect and the said observation needs no interference by this court.

17. Thus, this court finds no merits in the contention of the learned

counsel for the revision petitioner that the judgments of the courts

below were erroneous, incorrect or the evidence was not based on

(2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 207 (DB) Dr.GRR,J

material on record. Considering the material on record only, the

courts below had rightly came to the conclusion about the rash and

negligent manner of the accident by the petitioner/accused, which

resulted in the death of a person and grievous and simple injuries to

several other passengers in the bus.

18. As the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the

revision petitioner were already referred by the trial court and

appellate courts in their judgments and discussed about their

relevance, it is considered not necessary to repeat them once again in

this revision case.

19. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to set aside

the judgment of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court

in C.C. No.74 of 2010 dated 27.06.2014, which was confirmed by the

appellate court in Crl.A.No.76 of 2014 dated 08.01.2015.

20. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J January 07, 2022 LSK