Syed Jaffar, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 236 Tel

              HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

         CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.46 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

1. The petitioner, who is a lorry driver was convicted for the

offence under Section 304-A of IPC vide judgment in

C.C.No.96 of 2005 dated 05.01.2006 passed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial, which is confirmed by

the Sessions Judge at Adilabad vide judgment in Criminal

Appeal No.4 of 2006, dated 07.12.2006. Aggrieved by the

concurrent findings of guilt, present revision is filed by the

petitioner.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner,

who was a lorry driver, drove his lorry on 31.10.2001 in a rash

and negligent manner while coming from Laxettipet side and

ran over the deceased while she was crossing the road. As a

result, the deceased died while undergoing treatment on the

very same day. The petitioner was arrested on 05.11.2001 and

having received the postmortem examination report that the

cause of the death was due to head injury, charge sheet was

filed for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and also for

the reason of there being no medical defects in the vehicle.

3. Learned Magistrate, having examined ten witnesses and

marking relevant documents found that this petitioner had

driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing

death of the person, who was crossing the road. Learned

Magistrate convicted the petitioner and imposed sentence of

one year. Learned Sessions Judge, having found that the

Magistrate did not commit any error in coming to conclusion

of guilt, confirmed the finding of the learned Magistrate

however, reduced the sentence of imprisonment for a period to

eight months from one year.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently

argued that this is one case wherein the petitioner was

wrongly convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

P.W.1 and P.W.5 were planted witnesses and the question of

the witnesses P.Ws.1 who was at the bus stand and PW5

witnessing the driver of the lorry when he was sitting inside

the hotel, according to their evidence, is highly improbable and

for the said reason, the petitioner has to be acquitted. Further,

the deceased was in fact negligently crossing the road without

even looking at the vehicles on the road, for which reason of

her contributory negligence the accident had occurred. For the

said reason also, the conviction has to be reversed.

5. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor submits that both the Courts below had

committed no error in finding the petitioner guilty of the

offence under Section 304-A of IPC. For the reason of causing

death of the deceased by driving the vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner, the revision filed by the petitioner has to be

dismissed.

6. As seen from the record, P.W.1 was the person who was

sitting at the bus stand and P.W.5 was the owner of Tea Stall.

The evidence of P.W.1 is that the lorry was driven in a zigzag

manner and ran over the person, who was crossing the road.

At a place like the bus stand, the buses would stop and also

the people cross the road for catching the buses. It is for the

drivers of the vehicles to be vigilant and drive cautiously at

such places where public moment is imminent. Places such as

bus stops, markets and traffic signals, persons driving the

vehicles should be vigilant since there would be moment of

public and pedestrians tend to cross the roads at the said

places.

7. In the instant case, the lorry was driven in a zig-zag

manner and ran over the deceased who was crossing the road.

Lorry went to a distance and stopped there and from there,

petitioner allegedly fled the scene. The argument of the

learned counsel that there was no opportunity for P.W.1 or

P.W.5 to identify the driver, who was stranger and even

according to the prosecution, he fled scene after committing

the accident, cannot be accepted.

8. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has a valid

point that the petitioner/driver being a stranger and there

being no test identification parade, the identification in the

court becomes doubtful. However, in such cases, where there

is an accident which was caused leading to a death or any

stranger inflicting injuries to any person would have any

amount of impact on the mind of a person witnessing such

accident or incident. Further, such incidents leave a lasting

impact and persons identifying such strangers who were

involved in such acts of either causing accidents leading to

death or inflicting injuries to some other persons would not be

easily faded away. For the said reason, I do not find any

infirmity or suspicion in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5

identifying the driver of the lorry who had driven the same in

such a fashion causing death of the deceased.

9. In the said circumstances, I do not find any irregularity

or impropriety in the orders passed by both the Courts below

and accordingly, confirms the conviction of the petitioner for

the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. However, since the

incident is of the year 2001 and 22 years have lapsed, this

Court deems it appropriate to reduce the sentence of

imprisonment to six months.

10. The concerned Magistrate shall cause appearance of the

petitioner and send him to prison to serve out the remaining

part of the sentence. Needless to say the imprisonment already

undergone shall be given set off.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 18.01.2023 kvs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.R.C.No.46 of 2007

Dated: 18.01.2023

kvs