Enjamuri Shekar vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 3352 Tel

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2324 OF 2016


ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the

Judgment of the XIV Additional Sessions Judge-cum-XIV

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy

District at L.B. Nagar, in Crl.A.No.59 of 2016 dated

08.09.2016, wherein the learned Sessions Judge

dismissed the Appeal by confirming the conviction and

sentence passed by the learned XXVI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Maheshwaram, in C.C.No.389 of 2014 dated

04.01.2016 and sentenced the revision

petitioner/Accused simple imprisonment for a period of

six (06) months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. In default,

the revision petitioner/accused shall suffer simple

imprisonment for one (01) month for the offence under

Section 338 IPC. The Appellate Court has erroneously

considered Section 304-A of the IPC, when there is no

finding in the trial Court with regard to the same. The

revision petitioner/Accused prayed to set-aside the 2 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

judgments of the Courts below and acquit him of the

offence.

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

2.1 On 24-11-2012 at 12.00 hours, the

complainant and his family members were going to

Srisailam. Meanwhile, at about 14.00 hours, when his

vehicle reached the Mohabathnagar gate, one bus bearing

No. AP 29 Z 0193, being driven by its driver rashly and

negligently, dashed their Car, and one Bhagyalaxmi

received bleeding injuries and was admitted to the

hospital. Based on the report of P.W.6/Complainant,

P.W.15/ M. Gangadhar, CIP registered a case in Cr.No.

213 of 2012, for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The

same was later transferred to P.W.11 for further

investigation.

2.2 On 06.04.2013 P.W.11, upon receiving the

information of Bhagyalaxmi's death, visited Gandhi

Hospital, conducted the inquest panchnama and filed a

memo altering the Section from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC.

                       3                                       RRN,J
                                            Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

2.3 The prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 11 and

marked Exs. P1 to P11 on its behalf. The accused was

examined under section 313 Cr.PC, where he denied the

evidence and reported no defence witness.

2.4 The consideration before the trial court was

whether the prosecution established the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution

relied upon the depositions of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and

P.W.6 to establish the rash and negligent driving of the

accused. P.W.5, the conductor of the said bus, deposed

that he did not observe how the accident occurred but

confirmed that the accused was the bus driver on the

date of the accident. The trial Court found the accused to

be guilty of the offence under Section 338 IPC and

sentenced him to simple imprisonment for Six (06)

months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500. The appellate Court,

vide its judgment dated 08.09.2016, upheld the trial

court's judgment and held that there was no need to

interfere with the same, after considering the factual

matrix.

                         4                                         RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

2.5 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had

contended that there were major discrepancies in the

timeline of the events as considered by both the trial

court and the appellate court. He further contended that

the trial court observed that P.W.3 was only a

circumstantial witness, and it could be inferred that he

was not travelling in the car which met with the accident.

In contrast, the appellate court's finding in para 10 is

that, P.W. 2 and P.W.3, both were travelling in the car

along with the deceased. He further contended that the

evidences of P.Ws. 5 and 6 are unreliable, owing to major

factual discrepancies. He further contended that even as

per the evidence of P.W.6/complainant, who is the driver

of the car, deposed that the accident occurred when the

bus collided with the car and dashed into its right side.

However, there is no material or evidence to suggest that

P.W.6 sustained any injuries, when he should be severely

injured. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner

further submitted that P.W.6 explained that he went to

the police station to lodge a complaint. This contradiction 5 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

has not been considered by either of the courts below.

Accordingly, prayed to allow the criminal revision petition.

3. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor appearing for the State had contended that

the Courts below were justified in passing the impugned

judgments.

4. Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned Counsel appearing

for the revision petitioner/accused and learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

Perused the record.

5. On bare perusal of the impugned order of the

Appellate Court, it is observed that the Appellate Court

confirmed the conviction and sentence against the

revision petitioner/accused.

6. Point: Whether the Courts below are justified in

convicting the revision petitioner?

7. Upon careful perusal of the record, especially the

deposition of the witnesses, many discrepancies are

noticed in their version which is to be looked into. P.W.1 6 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

and P.W. 2, who are alleged eyewitnesses, stated that they

were travelling in the car at the time of the accident.

However, they could neither recollect the registration

number of the bus nor could they identify the bus driver.

With regards to the evidence of P.W. 3 the husband of the

deceased, he deposed that his wife met with an accident

near Maheshwaram. However, the trial court found that

he happened to be a circumstantial witness, and his

evidence is relevant only to corroborate the death of the

deceased in the accident. As such, there is not much

clarity as to the scene of offence. Further, P.W.4 who also

witnessed the accident, did not support the case of the

prosecution. It is to be noted that except P.W.6, who is

the car driver, none of the above witnesses said that the

bus driver was driving the bus at a high speed and in a

rash and negligent manner.

8. P.W. 5, the bus conductor deposed that when the

bus reached near Mohabathnagar, the accident occurred.

At that time, he was writing the SR book and thus did not

observe how the accident occurred. Had the bus really 7 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

been driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

manner, he could not have been writing the SR book. This

only proves that the driver of the bus did not drive the

bus in a rash and negligent manner.

9. Moreover, P.W.6, in his cross-examination stated

that six members were travelling in his car including

himself. He deposed that the police enquired with him at

the scene and subsequently, the car was taken to the

police station. He further deposed that while he was

going on the left side, the bus hit his car on the right side.

It is also pertinent to note the statement of P.W. 6 that he

had seen the bus driver only during the trial, after the

accident. That there was no Test of Identification Parade

conducted by the prosecution to verify the claim of the

complainant, is a procedural lapse which the prosecution

has not explained. Further, as seen from the evidence of

P.W.9/MVI in the cross-examination, he stated that there

are no scratches on the car, but goes on to say that he

has not examined the car which was involved in the

accident. This shows that there are major factual 8 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

inconsistencies with regard to all the evidences adduced

by the prosecution.

10. It is to be noted that the accident took place on

24.11.2012 at about 14.00 hours, whereas the death of

the deceased Bhagyalaxmi took place on 06.04.2013. The

prosecution has failed to examine the Medical Officer

LW.12/Dr. Nagesh who treated the deceased for a period

of three months to ascertain the possibility of medical

negligence in causing the death of the deceased.

However, the prosecution examined P.W.10 who deposed

that she conducted an autopsy over the dead body of the

deceased and opined that if the patient is negligent in

using the medicine, there is a possibility of the death of

the person. She further opined that the head injuries are

possible if a person falls from a height. So, the

prosecution failed to produce any evidence that there is a

nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries

allegedly sustained in the accident. As the Appellate

court did not observe anything with regard to the above, it 9 RRN,J Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

can be safely stated that a reasonable doubt exists in

favour of the revision petitioner.

11. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this

Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below erred

in convicting the revision petitioner and the judgments of

both the Courts below are liable to be set aside.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is

allowed. The Judgment of the XIV Additional Sessions

Judge-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, in Crl.A.No.59 of

2016 dated 08.09.2016, wherein the learned Sessions

Judge dismissed the Appeal by confirming the conviction

and sentence passed by the learned XXVI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Maheshwaram, in C.C.No.389 of 2014 dated

04.01.2016 are hereby set aside and the revision

petitioner is acquitted of the offence under section 338

IPC. The fine amount paid by the revision petitioner

shall be returned to him. The bail bonds of the revision

petitioners shall stand cancelled.

                        10                                    RRN,J
                                           Crl. RC.No.2324 of 2016

          As     a    sequel,    pending     miscellaneous

applications, if any shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

20th day of October, 2023 BDR