Telangana High Court

Naresh Kumar, Punjab State vs P.P., Hyd on 20 October, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

          CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.926 OF 2015

ORDER:

This Criminal Revision Case directed against the

judgment dt.28.05.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions

Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal

No.42 of 2014, wherein and where under the learned Sessions

Judge confirmed the judgment dt.11.08.2014 passed by the

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

C.C. No.222 of 2012 against the accused.

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

No.222 of 2012, whereas the respondent is the State. For

convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they

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

3. Vide the aforesaid judgments, the accused was convicted

for the offence punishable under section 304-A 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.500/-. In default of payment of the fine, he shall suffer

Simple Imprisonment for one month.

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

                             2                                     RRN,J
                                                 Crl. RC No.926 of 2015

On 22.08.2012 at 6.00 a.m., one Adari Appala Naidu

(hereinafter referred to as "deceased"), who was the father of

PW.1/Adari Nagu, the complainant, left the house on a bicycle

to Sardar Nagar to sell Idlis and when the deceased reached

the bus stop of Sardar Nagar, the accused, who was the driver

of crime DCM vehicle bearing No.HR-62A-0106 drove the same

in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle of the

deceased. The tyre of the crime DCM vehicle ran over the

deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous

bleeding injuries. Immediately, PWs 2, 3 and 6, the

eyewitnesses who were there, shifted the deceased to

Government Hospital, Shadnagar, where the deceased, while

undergoing treatment, died around 7.00 a.m.

4. PW.1 lodged the complaint with the police, Shabad. Thus,

upon registering the crime and investigating into 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-6 got marked. No evidence was

adduced on behalf of the accused.

                                3                                     RRN,J
                                                    Crl. RC No.926 of 2015

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

found the accused guilty of the charged offence 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 offence punishable under Section 304-A 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

petitioner that both the Courts below erred in convicting the

accused for the charged offence 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.926 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 PWs 2, 3 and 6 are

the eyewitnesses to the accident, who categorically deposed

that the accused was the driver of the crime DCM vehicle, who

drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the

bicycle of the deceased. The evidence of PW1 circumstantially

corroborates that testimony of the eyewitness. Further, PW7

the panch witness to the scene of offence, corroborated the

prosecution case. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision

petition.

11. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the petitioner is entitled for setting aside the concurrent judgments of the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code?

                            5                                     RRN,J
                                                Crl. RC No.926 of 2015

12. POINT:

PWs 2, 3 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the accident.

They categorically and consistently deposed that the driver of

the crime DCM vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed the cycle of the deceased from the

backside, due to which the deceased fell down. The crime DCM

vehicle ran over the deceased, as a result of which, he

sustained grievous bleeding injuries. They further deposed

that they saw the accused, and accordingly they could identify

him. PW.2 identified the accused, who was present in the

Court hall as the driver of the crime DCM vehicle.

13. The evidence of PW.2 consistently shows that he and the

deceased used to go to Shabad to sell Idlis and on 22.08.2012

at 6.30 a.m., PW.2 and deceased started to go to Shabad.

When they reached Sardarnagar, the deceased was proceeding

in front of him (PW.2) at a distance of 10 meters at which time

the crime DCM vehicle came at high speed and dashed the

cycle of the deceased from the back side.The deceased fell down

and the DCM vehicle, ran over the deceased causing severe

bleeding injuries. PW.2 further deposed that he informed PW.1

about the accident. He also saw the driver of the crime DCM

vehicle and he identified him. The evidence of PW.2 remained 6 RRN,J Crl. RC No.926 of 2015

unchallenged by the accused as no specific suggestion was

given to deny the same, except giving a general suggestion that

he did not see the accident and the driver of the crime DCM

vehicle is in no way connected to the accident which was

denied by the PW.2.

14. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, he deposed that he is a

resident of Sardarnagar and on the date of the accident, he was

standing in front of his house, which is situated on the side of

the road. So, it could be possible for PW.3 to witness the

accident. He also deposed that he is familiar with the deceased

as the deceased used to sell the Idlis at the village of PW.3 by

coming on the cycle. In the cross-examination, he stated that

he is an Ex-Sarpanch of his Village, Sardarnagar, and he

further deposed that he brought the accused and kept him in a

room only to protect the accused from being beaten by the

villagers at the time of the accident. As seen from his evidence,

PW.3 is not only a respectable person but also a responsible

citizen, and there would not be any occasion for him to depose

falsely against the accused. PW.3 had seen the accused.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW.6, he deposed that he is a

resident of Sardarnagar. On the date of the accident in the 7 RRN,J Crl. RC No.926 of 2015

morning, he was doing a morning walk in front of the

Pochammaguda temple at Sardarnagar, and he witnessed the

accident. The categorical evidence of PW.6 was not challenged

by the accused.

16. The evidence of PW.4/Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed

that he inspected the vehicle No.HR-62-A-0106 found no

damages and opined that this accident had not occurred due to

mechanical defects, and he issued Ex.P2/MVI report.

17. The evidence of PW.5/Investigating Officer shows that he

conducted the scene of offence panchanama, prepared the

rough sketch of the scene, held an inquest over the dead body

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

examination. PW.7, the panch witness to the scene of offence

and inquest, corroborated the testimony of PW.5.

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

record vide the testimony of PWs 1 to 7 and Ex.P1 to P6, 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.

                                 8                                      RRN,J
                                                      Crl. RC No.926 of 2015

Accordingly, no interference is warranted as far as conviction is

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

place on 22.08.2012, and almost 11 years have been 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.

19. In the aforesaid circumstances, while maintaining the

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