Aabdul Sajid vs The State Of Telangna
2022 Latest Caselaw 6015 Tel

                                        1
                                                                            Dr. GRR, J
                                                                       crlrc_37_2018
              THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

               CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 37 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused against the

judgment dated 19.12.2017 in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2017 on the file of III

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Asifabad confirming the sentence

passed in C.C.No.537 of 2012 dated 27.09.2017 on the file of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur.

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

the driver of Vivekananda College mini bus bearing No. AP10W-2436 and on

29.08.2012 at 08:15 AM while carrying students to the college, he drove the bus

in a rash and negligent manner and hit a motor cycle from behind, due to which

the rider of the motor cycle and two (02) pillion riders fell down and the rider of

the motor cycle sustained head injury and died on the spot and the pillion riders

sustained injuries. Basing on the report given by the father of the deceased, the

SI of Police of PS Kagaznagar Town registered a case vide Crime.No.114 of

2012 for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC. After investigation,

charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences under

Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC.

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018

3. The case was taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Sirpur and was tried by the said court. During the course of trial, the

prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. No defence

evidence was adduced by the accused. On considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused guilty for the

offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (02) years for the offence

under Section 304-A of IPC, a simple imprisonment for a period of one (01)

year for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and a simple imprisonment for six

(06) months for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and all the sentences are

directed to run concurrently.

4. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an

appeal. The appeal was heard by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Asifabad vide Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2017 and vide judgment dated

19.12.2017 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the accused for

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC but modifying the sentence and

reducing it to one (01) year rigorous imprisonment. The lower appellate court

observing that the single act of the accused resulted in multiple consequences

for the offences under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC and that he could not be

convicted for the said offences, set aside the same.

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner-accused preferred this

revision contending that the father of the deceased was a retired employee in

RTC. His complaint would not show that the bus ran over the deceased, the

pillion riders, the brothers of the deceased subsequently improved their versions

and stated that the bus ran over the head of the deceased. The independent

witness, PW6 had not supported the case of the prosecution. No student who

was travelling in the bus was examined to bring the truth on record regarding

the accident. The scene of offence would show that there were houses and it

was a busy traffic area, but, neither any of the persons residing in the said

houses nor any of the passers-by were examined by the Investigating Officer.

The genesis of the offence was screened and the story which suited the

prosecution case was subsequently brought on record through PW3, who was an

interested child witness. The MVI examined as PW12 only stated about

inspecting the mini bus, but there was no evidence to show that the Hero Honda

Shine Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 1S 5562 of the deceased was examined by

him to find out whether there was any mechanical defect in the said motor

cycle. The investigation was not fair to fix the liability against the petitioner-

accused. The prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the revision

petitioner-accused beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to set aside the

judgments of the courts below.

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018

6. There was no representation for the revision-petitioner though the matter

was posted to several dates since the year 2018. As such on hearing the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor, this Court proceeded to decide the matter on

merits.

7. On perusal of the record, the complaint was given by the father of the

deceased on 29.08.2012 at 9:00 AM after the accident to his son on the same

day at 8:00 AM. As per his complaint, his second son by name Fasi-Ur-

Raheman (deceased) aged 22 years was taking his younger sons Abdul

Raheman aged 11 years and Jabi-Ur-Raheman aged 7 years on the motor cycle

to drop them at school and on their way at 8:15 AM met with an accident by the

Vivekananda College Bus bearing No. AP10W-2436 due to the rash and

negligent driving of the bus by its driver and his son Fasi-Ur-Raheman

sustained severe head injury and died on the spot and his younger sons

sustained injuries and were undergoing treatment in a private hospital. He also

stated the name of the driver of the crime vehicle as Abdul Sajid,

S/o. Mohd. Rasool, resident of Dada Nagar. Thus, the number of the crime

vehicle, the details of the driver and the manner of the accident were stated by

the complainant in his report marked as Ex.P1 immediately after the accident.

The pillion riders, the brothers of the deceased, Abdul Raheman was examined

as PW3 and Jabi-Ur-Raheman was examined as PW4. Both these witnesses

stated about the manner of the accident, that on 29.08.2012 at 8:00 AM while

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018 their elder brother was taking them on motor cycle to their school

Vishwashanthi Techno High School at 8:15 AM and when they reached Lorry

Chowrasta of Kagaznagar, Vivekananda Junior College bus bearing No.

AP10W-2436 came from Rajiv Chowk in high speed and negligently and

dashed against their motor cycle from behind due to which their elder brother

died on the spot.

8. Though, these witnesses stated that the bus ran over the deceased, the

same was not corroborated by the doctor who conducted the PME, examined as

PW11. He only stated that the cause of death was due to head injury in a road

traffic accident and not stated about the head being crushed. But, however, the

same could not be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of eye-witnesses,

examined as PWs 3 and 4. An independent witness was also examined as PW6

who was residing in the near-by house at the place of accident. He stated that

on 29.08.2012 at 8:00 or 9:00 AM while he was present in his house, heard a

big sound from the road. Immediately, he came out and noticed that an accident

took place and a college bus pertaining to Vivekananda Junior College hit a

motor cycle. He noticed three (03) persons on the motor cycle, one person died

and the other two persons sustained injuries. He stated that he had not seen the

driver of the bus, but came to know the name of the bus driver as Sajid. Thus,

the evidence of this witness also corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1, 3

and 4, though he was declared as hostile as he had not identified the driver of

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018 the bus or stated about witnessing the accident at the time of its occurrence.

The non-examination of the students travelling in the bus was not fatal to the

prosecution case when there is the evidence of the other witnesses.

9. Though, the trial court believed the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 with regard

to the identity of the accused, the lower appellate court disbelieved their

evidence with regard to the identity of the accused as it was elicited in their

cross-examination that after the accident, the driver escaped from the scene and

that they did not observe the driver and PW4 stated that he fell unconscious

after the accident and regained consciousness in the hospital. But, however

considering the evidence of the owner of the bus, examined as PW9 who stated

in his chief-examination that it was the accused, who drove the bus, the lower

appellate court believed the identity of the accused. PW9 in his cross-

examination stated that he was at Hyderabad on the date of accident and he did

not know as to who was the driver of the bus, as there were two (02) drivers on

his bus, but the trial court as well as the lower appellate court rightly observed

that the accused had not taken the defence that it was the second driver who

drove the bus at the time of the accident, believed the identity of the accused as

the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. The name of the

accused mentioned in the complaint which was filed immediately after the

accident and the evidence of PW6 also stating about the name of the accused as

the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident and the evidence of

Dr. GRR, J crlrc_37_2018 PW9, the owner of the vehicle stating in his chief-examination that it was the

accused who was the driver of the said bus at the time of the accident, adds

credence to the prosecution version. There is no reason to consider otherwise.

As the bus hit the motor cycle which was travelling in front of it and the eye-

witnesses stated about the rash and negligent manner in which the crime vehicle

hit their vehicle, the courts below rightly convicted the accused for the offence

under Section 304-A of IPC.

10. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the

findings of the courts below in convicting the accused for the offence under

Section 304-A of IPC. As the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial

court was already reduced by the lower appellate court to one year rigorous

imprisonment, this Court does not find any necessity to interfere with the same

in this revision.

11. As such, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the

judgment of conviction and sentence as affirmed by the III Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Asifabad in Criminal Appeal No.132 of 2017 dated

19.12.2017.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J

21st November, 2022 nsk.