Mukesh Bopche, Nagpur vs P.P., Hyd
2023 Latest Caselaw 3351 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

        CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.925 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case directed against the

judgment dt.02.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal

No.27 of 2014, wherein and whereunder, the learned Sessions

Judge confirmed the judgment dt.27.05.2014 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chevella, R.R. District, in

C.C. No.57 of 2013 against the accused.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.

No.57 of 2013, whereas the respondent is the State. For

convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as

arrayed in the C.C. before the trial Court.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgments, the accused was convicted

for the offences punishable under sections 304-A and 338 of

the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 304-A IPC, and

Rs.1,000/- for the offence under section 338 IPC. In default of

payment of fine amounts, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment

for one month each.

                              2                                      RRN,J
                                                   Crl. RC No.925 of 2015

4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 08.12.2012, one Cherla Pochaiah (hereinafter referred

to as "deceased") and his friend Vadde Rajesh (PW.2) were

proceeding towards Shabad from Chevella on a motorcycle

bearing No.AP-23-AG-3557 at about 5.00 p.m., and when they

reached near Allawada gate, the accused, who was proceeding

towards Chevalla from Shabad, drove the crime DCM vehicle

bearing No.MH-04N-5713 in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed the motorcycle on which the deceased and PW.2 were

travelling from the opposite direction. As a result, the

deceased, who was the rider of the motorcycle, received

bleeding injuries on his head and died on the spot, and the

pillion rider (PW.2) received bleeding injuries on his right leg.

4. PW.1/Smt.CH. Vijaya, wife of the deceased, lodged the

complaint/Ex.P1 with the police, Chevella. Thus, upon

registering the crime and investigating the matter, the police

filed a chargesheet against the accused, and the Trial Court

took cognizance.

5. In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 to 7 were

examined and Exs.P-1 to P-9 were marked. No evidence was

adduced on behalf of the accused.

                                3                                     RRN,J
                                                    Crl. RC No.925 of 2015

6. On appreciating the material on record, the Trial Court

found the accused guilty of the charged offences and convicted

and sentenced the accused as stated supra.

7. Aggrieved thereof, the accused preferred the above

criminal appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and the

learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on

record, held that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and

338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt, and confirmed the

conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial

Court. Aggrieved by the same, the accused is challenging the

said judgments before this Court.

8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the accused and

the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

complainant/State. Perused the record.

9. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the

accused that both the Courts below erred in convicting the

accused for the charged offences without properly appreciating

the evidence on record. It was further contended that the

courts below failed to consider the contradictions and

inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses produced on 4 RRN,J Crl. RC No.925 of 2015

behalf of the prosecution and that the prosecution failed to

establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

prayed to allow the revision case by setting aside the impugned

judgments and acquit the revision petitioner.

10. Per contra, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

appearing on behalf of the respondent/State had contended

that the impugned judgments suffer no infirmity as they are

well reasoned. He further contended that PW.2 is the injured

eyewitness, who travelled along with the deceased as a pillion

rider. He consistently deposed that the accused drove his crime

DCM vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their

motorcycle from the opposite direction. He further contended

that PWs 1 to 7 also supported the prosecution case. The

evidence of PW1 circumstantially corroborates the testimony of

the eyewitness. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision

petition.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the accused is entitled for setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code?

                             5                                     RRN,J
                                                 Crl. RC No.925 of 2015

12. POINT:

PW.2 is the pillion rider, who is an eyewitness to the

accident. His testimony plays a prime position in determining

the case of the prosecution. There is credit-worthiness in the

evidence of PW.2, as there is no reason to suggest that he

would depose against the accused, had the accused not driven

the DCM vehicle. PW.2 categorically and consistently deposed

that the driver of the crime DCM vehicle drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the

deceased from the opposite direction, due to which the

deceased sustained grievous bleeding injuries and died on the

spot, and he (PW.2) also received bleeding injuries on his right

leg. On perusal of the evidence of PW.2, it is clear that the

DCM vehicle came in high speed and hit their bike, as a result

of which the deceased died on the spot and he received a

fracture injury. Further, nothing is elicited in favour of the

accused from the cross-examination of PW.2. Thus, there is no

dispute with regard to the death of the deceased in the accident

and the receiving of injuries by PW.2 in this accident.

13. It is observed by the trial Court that Ex.P4/rough sketch

clearly shows that the accused came in an opposite direction to

the motorcycle of the deceased and dashed the same. This 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.925 of 2015

infers that the DCM vehicle came in the wrong direction. Had

he not driven the vehicle in a wrong direction, the driver of the

DCM might have avoided the danger of hitting the motorcycle.

Thus, it was observed by the trial Court that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the

DCM vehicle.

14. Coming to the evidence of PW.3/Motor Vehicle Inspector

deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle and found

damages and noted in Ex.P2/MVI report and opined that this

accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects and

he issued Ex.P2/MVI report.

15. The evidence of PW.6/Investigating Officer shows that he

conducted the scene of offence panchanama, prepared the

rough sketch of the scene and held inquest over the dead body

of the deceased and referred the dead body for post-mortem

examination. PW.5, the panch witness to the scene of offence

and inquest, corroborated the testimony of PW.6. In the

evidence of One Ganesh Singh PW.7, there are a lot of

inconsistencies, and as such, his evidence is not helpful to the

case of the prosecution.

                             7                                    RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC No.925 of 2015

16. Thus, having scrutinized the whole evidence borne by the

record vide the testimony of PWs 1 to 6 and Ex.P1 to P9, and

on re-appreciation of the entire evidence, the Appellate Court

confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. Therefore, the

concurrent findings arrived at, by both the courts below are on

appreciation of the entire evidence in proper perspective.

Accordingly, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is

concerned. But, with regard to the sentence, the offence took

place on 08.12.2012, and almost 11 years have passed. During

this period, the accused might have repented for what he did

and that he had also undergone imprisonment for a certain

period during investigation, trial and after conviction. In these

circumstances and in the interest of justice, it would be

appropriate to reduce the sentence of the imprisonment to the

period already undergone by the accused while maintaining the

sentence of the fine amounts.

17. In the aforesaid circumstances, while maintaining the

conviction, the sentence of simple imprisonment of six (06)

months under Section 304-A and Section 338 of IPC imposed

on the accused is modified to that of the period already

undergone by him. The sentence of the fine amounts are not

interfered with.

                             8                                     RRN,J
                                                 Crl. RC No.925 of 2015




18.   With   the   above   modification   in   the   sentence       of

imprisonment, the criminal revision case stands disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date: 20.10.2023 BDR