Telangana High Court
Meda Yadaiah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 6 July, 2022
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1222 OF 2009
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401
Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 21.07.2009 passed in Criminal
Appeal No.374 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the judgment dated 10.11.2008
passed in C.C.No.968 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the XI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad.
2 The facts germane for filing of the present Criminal Revision Case
are that the accused being the driver of the RTC bus bearing No.AP 10
Z 1375 while proceeding towards Secunderabad from Medchal on
04.04.2004 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
a scooter bearing No.UMD 6706 from behind at Muslim graveyard
turning due to which the rider of the scooter by name Vasanth Kumar
and the pillion rider by name Anil Kumar fell down and sustained
injuries. However, while undergoing treatment, Anil Kumar succumbed
to injuries on the same day. In that connection a case was registered
against the petitioner under Sections 338 and 304-A of IPC and the
petitioner was put on trial for the said offences.
3 The trial Court, after full-fledged trial, found the petitioner guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and convicted
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the said offence,
however, acquitted him of the offence under Section 338 of IPC.
4 Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.11.2008, petitioner preferred
Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, after re-appreciating the entire evidence available on
record, confirmed the conviction of the accused, however, reduced the
sentence of rigorous imprisonment from one year to six months.
5 As stated supra, challenging the legality and validity of the
judgment dated 21.07.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2008
on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad,
the petitioner preferred the present Criminal Revision Case.
6 Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner and Sri A.Venkateswara Rao, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor for the respondent / State and perused the record.
7 Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that scene of
panchanama was not conducted, P.W.2 who was examined as
eyewitness to the accident, had given different number of the bus. He
would further contend that no test identification parade was
conducted. It is his further contention that the pillion rider of the
vehicle who also sustained injuries in the alleged accident was not
examined. He therefore prayed to allow the revision case.
8 On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
supported the judgments passed by both the Courts below and
contended that no interference is called for in this revision.
9 Admittedly, no scene of offence panchanama was conducted and
no test identification parade was conducted. It is also significant to
note that Vasanth Kumar who was travelling along with the deceased at
the time of accident was not examined as a witness before the Court
though his name was shown in the list of witnesses by the prosecution.
His non-examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution since he was
the direct eye-witness to the accident.
10 As seen from the record, P.W.1 at whose instance the case was
registered was a police constable. P.W.2 is cousin of the deceased,
P.W.3 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the
deceased and P.W.4 is the investigating officer.
11 Since there is no iota of ocular evidence to establish the rash and
negligent act of the accused - petitioner in committing the offence, it is
not safe to hold the petitioner guilty of the alleged offences. The
prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. Hence this Court is of the firm view that the accused is entitled
to acquittal.
12 In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the
judgment dated 21.07.2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.374 of 2008
on the file of the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad
and also the judgment dated 10.11.2008 passed in C.C.No.968 of 2004
on the file of the Court of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Secunderabad. Bail bonds of the petitioner shall stand
cancelled.
13 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand
closed.
_______________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J.
Date: 06.07.2022
Kvsn
