Shaik Ameer Hamza vs The State Sho., Sub Inspector Of ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2939 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2432 OF 2011
ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused

under Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short

'Cr.P.C.') aggrieved by the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions

Judge at Khammam in Criminal Appeal No.137 of 2011 dated

18.11.2011 wherein and whereby the conviction and sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated

29.07.2011 in CC No.299 of 2010, on the file of the learned III

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Khammam to suffer

simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri P.Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Vizarat Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing

learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.

3. The accusation against the petitioner was that on

20.12.2009 at about 1130 hours, PW1 gave a complaint to the police

complaining that the petitioner being the driver of lorry bearing No.AHT

5439, near Ayyappaswamy Temple of Wyra, in a rash and negligent

manner tried to over take another lorry and dashed APSRTC bus

bearing No.AP 20 Y 5729 of Sathupalli Depot, due to which, one

Danthala Laxminarayana and the deceased Burra Naveen, who were

travelling in the said bus, sustained grievous injuries over head and out

of them Burra Naveen died while undergoing treatment. Accordingly,

the police of Konijerla registered crime No.142 of 2009. Subsequently,

a charge-sheet was laid against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A IPC and was numbered as CC No.299

of 2010 before the learned III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Khammam, which Court, upon examination of the evidence

available on record, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and

sentenced him, as stated supra. The learned I Additional Sessions

Judge, Khammam, confirmed the said findings.

4. Aggrieved by the findings of both the Courts below, the

petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case mainly

contending that the findings of both the Courts below are made without

proper appreciation of evidence, on presumptions and assumptions,

erroneously based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are patrician in

nature and deposed false to save RTC driver and that the Courts below

failed to appreciate the contradictions in the prosecution witnesses and

version of the police regarding the apprehension of the petitioner. Thus

stating, it is requested to allow the present criminal revision case. On

the other hand, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that

the findings of the Courts below are well reasoned findings and there is

no necessity for interference of this Court.

5. Accident, involvement of crime vehicle and RTC bus in the

accident, injuries to the deceased and his subsequent death are not in

dispute. The main contention of the petitioner from the inception was

that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident.

He stated that no identification parade was conducted. He relied upon

the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the

police version. PWs.1 to 3 stated that immediately after accident, the

lorry went into the fields and accordingly, they chased the driver of the

said lorry and caught hold him. However, the version of police was that

on 23.12.2009 at about 1100 hours the petitioner surrendered before

the Inspector of Police and admitted his guilt. Ex.P8 trip sheet shows

the name of the petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle at the time

of accident. In view of the above, though the police version is different,

the version of PWs.1 to 3, who identified the petitioner as the driver of

the crime vehicle, is fortified by the recitals of Ex.P8 stating that the

petitioner was assigned with the duty of driving the crime lorry at the

time of accident. In view of the above, non-conduction of the

identification parade will not weaken the case of the prosecution and

that the petitioner cannot escape from his liability.

6. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and inmate of the bus.

PWs.2 and 3 are the driver and conductor respectively of the RTC bus.

PWs.4 and 5 are also the inmates of the said bus. PW6 is the panch

witness to crime details form under Ex.P2. PW7 is the doctor, who

conducted post-mortem examination over the body of deceased and

gave Ex.P3 report opining that due to the injuries sustained in the

accident, the death of deceased occurred. PW8 is the investigating

officer. During the course of investigation Ex.P7 Motor Vehicle

Inspectors Report was collected by PW8, which disclosed that there

were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Ex.P7 also depicted

the severity of the damages caused to the crime vehicle due to the rash

and negligent driving of the petitioner.

7. PWs.1 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the accident and they,

in one voice, have categorically explained the manner of accident and

also the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner being the driver of

crime vehicle stating that the petitioner tried to overtake another lorry

and dashed the RTC bus on its right side and ran into fields. They also

deposed that inspite of best efforts of PW2, who was the driver of RTC

bus, the accident could not be prevented. They also deposed that the

deceased sat beside the window and sustained injuries and was

immediately shifted to the hospital with the help of other passengers.

8. The prosecution by examining PWs.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P8

could able to successfully prove the rash and negligent manner of the

petitioner and his guilt in occurrence of accident resulting in death of

one Burra Naveen. Though the petitioner denied his complicity by way

of several contentions, he failed to substantiate the same by adducing

any evidence on his behalf or eliciting any incriminating material from

the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses to disbelieve their

evidence. Further, there appears no need or necessity for the

prosecution witnesses to implicate the petitioner in a criminal case by

falsely deposing against him.

9. Taking into consideration the above factual matrix, the trial

Court has rightly found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced

him as stated supra. The appellate Court also concurred with the said

findings. There are no presumptions or assumptions in the findings of

both the Courts below. Therefore, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the findings of both the Courts below are well considered

ones and they are sustainable and the grounds urged by the petitioner

do not warrant any interference of this Court so far as finding the guilt

of the petitioner is concerned.

10. So far as the sentence of imprisonment, imposed against

the petitioner by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is

concerned, this Court feels that since from the inception of case i.e.

from the year 2009 the petitioner is roaming around the Courts by

facing mental agony and trauma and hence, this itself is a sufficient

ground to take a lenient view in his favour. Accordingly, this Court is

inclined to decrease the period of imprisonment awarded to the

petitioner to that of the period which he already undergone.

11. Except the above modification, this criminal revision case

is dismissed in all other aspects. The bail bonds of the

petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. Miscellaneous applications, if

any pending, shall also stand dismissed.

____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J Dated :06-10-2023 abb