G.Purushotham Reddy vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2940 Tel

              THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1582 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 dated 28.07.2011 in Criminal

Appeal No.3 of 2011 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Hyderabad wherein the conviction and sentence of

imprisonment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC and also to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence

punishable under Section 279 of IPC directing the sentences to run

concurrently, awarded vide judgment dated 27.12.2010 in CC No.575

of 2008, on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Hyderabad, was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. None

appeared on behalf of Sri Srinivasa Reddy Balakisti, learned counsel for

the petitioner.

3. The facts that lead to institution of CC No.575 of 2008, on

the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad, succinctly, are that on the basis of complaint of PW1, the

police of Chaderghat registered Crime No.328 of 2008 for the offences

punishable under Sections 337 and 279 of Indian Penal Code (for short

'IPC') alleging that when PW1 went inside the police station of

Chaderghat to complain the hazardous situation of hanging over of iron

rod from Malakpet Railway Bridge, the petitioner, being the driver of

bus bearing No.AP 22 U 9092, rammed on his car causing physical

damage to rear side and also caused bleeding injuries to three police

personnel viz. K.Bikshapathi, Raghavender and AVR Prasad. During

the course of enquiry, the petitioner surrendered himself before the

police. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was laid and

was numbered as CC No.575 of 2008 for the offences punishable under

Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. The trial Court, after consideration of

the entire evidence available on record in the form of PWs.1 to 5 and

Exs.P1 to P5, has found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced

as stated supra. The said findings were confirmed by the learned

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide judgment in Crl.Appeal

No.3 of 2011.

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

petitioner filed the present criminal revision case contending that the

findings of both the Courts below are made on assumptions and

presumptions, without appreciating the evidence in proper perspective

and the negligent act of PW1 parking his car in front of the police

station. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contended that the findings of both the Courts below are well

considered and reasoned ones and there is no need or necessity for

interference by this Court.

5. PW1 is the de-facto complainant. PWs.2 and 3 are the

injured eyewitnesses and home guards, who were attending the duty at

Chaderghat Police Station at the crucial time of incident and they

clearly narrated the misdeed of the petitioner in causing damage to the

car of PW1 and injuries to themselves and AVR Prasad contending that

while the bus was taking U turn, the incident had taken place. PW4 is

the panch witness to the scene of offence. PW5 is the investigating

officer. Perusal of evidence of PWs.1 to 3 clearly proves though the

Chaderghat area is a busiest area, PW1 parked his car without causing

any hindrance to the on-going public and at the time of accident, the

traffic was very less since it was morning time.

6. PWs.2 and 3 have clearly identified the petitioner as the

driver of the crime vehicle at the time of accident. When the said

evidence coupled with the fact that the petitioner voluntarily

surrendered before PW5 on 27.09.2008 is scrutinized, the petitioner

cannot deny his identity as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of

accident. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully shifted its

burden to the petitioner alleging that he was the driver of the crime

vehicle at the time of accident. When the petitioner denies his identity,

since the crime vehicle is a college bus and there must be some record

showing the assignment of duties to the drivers and accordingly, if the

petitioner was not the driver of the crime vehicle, it is the duty of the

petitioner or the management to give the particulars of the driver, who

drove the crime vehicle at that time. But there was no such attempt

either from the petitioner or from the management. This itself gives a

presumption that the petitioner was the driver and hence, no efforts

have been taken in this regard.

7. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 went in similar lines pointing

out the liability of the petitioner in driving the crime vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner. Evidence of PW4 clearly explained the scene of

offence. The petitioner failed to elicit any incriminating material either

by adducing evidence or by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses.

In that view of the matter, it can be safely held that the prosecution has

successfully proved the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt

for the offences with which he was charge-sheeted. Considering all

these facts, both the Courts below have rightly found the petitioner

guilty for the offence with which he was charge-sheeted. The said

findings are well reasoned findings and they cannot be interfered with

by this Court so far as they relate to finding guilt of the petitioner.

8. So far as the quantum of sentence awarded to the

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2008 the petitioner has been

roaming around the Courts for defending himself from the case by

facing mental agony and trauma. This itself is a sufficient ground to

take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of imprisonment imposed

on the petitioner by the Courts below is concerned. Therefore, the

sentence of imprisonment imposed to the petitioner is hereby reduced

to that of the imprisonment he has already undergone.

9. Except the above modification in respect of period of

sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner, this criminal

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

petitioner shall stand cancelled. Interlocutory applications, if any

pending, shall stand dismissed.

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