Anyalapu Linga Swamy Lingaiah, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 1535 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1110 of 2009

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the Judgment

dated 30.06.2009 in Crl.A.No.21 of 2008 passed by the learned

Family-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda confirming

the Judgment dated 23.01.2008 in C.C.No.576 of 2005 passed

by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile

Court), Nalgonda.

2. The de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the

revision petitioner/accused stating that he along with 28 others

from Srikakulam District came to Narsinghbatla village of

Nalgonda district for labour work and worked under a

Contractor. On 22.05.2005, to return to their native villages

they boarded a lorry bearing No. AP 24 T 7767 along with their

luggage. When the vehicle reached near Motubavigudem village,

the driver of the lorry namely Anyalapu Linga Swamy @

Lingaiah driven the lorry in rash and negligent manner with a

high speed and lost control over the vehicle, as a result of which

the lorry turned turtle and four persons died and others

sustained injuries.

3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution

examined P.Ws.1 to 25 and marked Exs.P1 to P37.

4. The trial Court observed that the vehicle was driven in a

high speed. The inmates of the lorry cautioned the driver to go

slow, but he did not listen to them. There is a turning at the

place of accident, as he could not slow down the vehicle it

turned turtle twice and fell down, as a result of which 4 persons

died and several persons sustained injuries. Many members

witnessed the accident. Some of the passengers sat beside the

driver in the cabin and some of them have boarded in the body

of the lorry. The accident was occurred after travelling one

Kilometer from Domalapally Village. The trial Court considering

the evidence on record convicted accused and sentenced to

undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to

pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to three months Rigorous

imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 337 of

IPC and also sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous

imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338 of

IPC. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the accused preferred an

appeal before the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court

dismissed the appeal by confirming the Judgment of the trial

Court. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the present Criminal

Revision Case is preferred.

5. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner/accused

mainly contended that there are several material discrepancies,

contradictions and omission in the evidence of witnesses, but

they were not considered properly. As per the Cross-

examination of P.Ws.1 to 7, most of them stated that they have

boarded the lorry from back side, in that stage it is not possible

to identify the driver of the vehicle. But, they identified the

revision petitioner simply in the Court hall, as such their

evidence is not sustainable. The P.Ws.8 to 10 are the injured

and eye witnesses, but they did not support the case of the

prosecution and they did not identify the accused as driver.

P.W.11 is the independent witness and he has also not

identified the driver of the vehicle. The P.W.17 who is the

cleaner of the lorry has also not supported the case of the

prosecution. As per the evidence of P.W.24, the owner of the

Crime vehicle surrendered the Crime vehicle driver in his office,

but the owner of the vehicle was not examined before the Court

and did not seized the documents which are in possession of the

petitioner like driving license, etc., and the photographs of the

crime vehicle were also not produced before the Court.

Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the

first appellate Court.

6. Admittedly, accused was driving the lorry as on the date

of accident. All the passengers intend to go to their native

village. Their contention is that accused was driving the vehicle

in high speed, as there was turning at the place of accident and

the speed of the vehicle was not reduced, the vehicle was turned

turtle. No doubt, four persons were died in the accident and

others sustained injuries. Both the Courts gave concurrent

finding that accused is guilty for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC and the trial Court imposed

Rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year.

7. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended

that there was a turning at the place of accident, but it was not

noticed by both the Courts. He relied upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Raju Vs. State of

Orissa, 1 in which it was held that accident was occurred about

15 years back and he was on bail for more than 8 years, as such

he was directed to be released under Section 360 of Cr.P.C on

1995 Supp (2) SCC 385

probation of good conduct. In this case, the accident was

occurred on 22.05.2005 and the trial Court disposed of the

C.C.No.576 of 2005 on 23.01.2008 and the appeal was

confirmed on 30.06.2009 and the present appeal was preferred

in the year 2009, from the past 12 years it was pending before

this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued

that the accused was aged about 26 years as on the date of

accident. Both the Courts have not considered the fact that

accident was occurred at turning. No doubt, the driver of the

vehicle was driving the vehicle with high speed. As a result,

when there was turning the lorry turned turtle and four persons

were died in the accident and others sustained injuries. He

ought to have slowdown the vehicle at the turning, but he failed

to do so. All the witnesses stated that they instructed him to

reduce the speed. Even then, he has not reduced the speed, but

in fact all of them intended to reach railway station to go to their

native place, as the contract on which they came over from all

the way to Srikakulam was completed. Therefore, this Court

finds it just and reasonable to modify the sentence of

imprisonment imposed against the accused from Rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year to Simple imprisonment

for a period of three months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, and further to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC

and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Total fine of Rs.15,000/-)

for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer

Simple imprisonment for the period of 15 days on each count.

8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed

upholding the conviction passed by the first appellate Court,

but the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the revision

petitioner/accused is reduced from Rigorous imprisonment for a

period of one year to Simple imprisonment for a period of three

months with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable

under Section 304-A of IPC, and further to pay a fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and also to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Total fine of Rs.15,000/-) for the

offence under Section 338 of IPC, in default to suffer Simple

imprisonment for the period of 15 days on each count.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed.

_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

DATED: 06.04.2023 tri

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1110 of 2009

DATED: 06.04.2023

TRI