Vembadi Tirupathi vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2089 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1130 OF 2012
ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under

Sections 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.')

aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.06.2012 passed by the learned I

Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad in Criminal Appeal No.134 of 2011

wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against

the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for

three months for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and

to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337

of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment

for one month directing the sentences to run concurrently by setting off

the remand period if any undergone by the petitioner under Section

428 of Cr.P.C., passed vide judgment dated in CC No.120 of 2008 by

the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nirmal was

confirmed.

2. Heard Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.

3. Crime No.86 of 2006 on the file of Police Station Kodam for

the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC was

registered on the complaint of PW1 dated 10.08.2006 alleging that

when 50 persons were coming by walk from Navabpet to Laxmipur

Village, after completion of grampanchayat elections, the petitioner

being the rider of motor cycle bearing No.AP 6 K 7781, along with two

pillion riders came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed them

from backside due to which, T.Rajavva, E.Rajavva, R.Rajanarsu, Medi

Rajanna, E.Vijaya, E.Sathavva, P.Shantha, G.Lachanna, Suddala

Naresh, G.Bhumaiah, J.Lachanna and others sustained simple and

grievous injuries and fractures over their face, head, hands and other

parts of body and later on 11.08.2006 out of the above injured persons,

E.Rajavva succumbed to injuries in Government Hospital. After

completion of investigation a charge-sheet vide CC No.120 of 2008 was

laid before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nirmal, which Court, upon consideration of entire material available on

record in the form of PWs.1 to 15 and Exs.P1 to P22, found the

petitioner guilty of the offences with which he was charge-sheeted,

convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The said findings were

confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

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

petitioner filed the present criminal revision case mainly contending

that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that involvement

of the crime vehicle was not deposed by any of the witnesses, they erred

in relying on the evidence of PW.1, who is not an eye witness to the

accident instead of treating PWs.2 to 8 and 11 as eye witnesses. On

the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the

findings of both the Courts below are made after careful appreciation of

the entire evidence available on record and the said findings cannot be

interfered with by this Court.

5. PW.1 is the de-facto complainant, he being the auto driver

travelling through the road where accident had taken place, on seeing

the injured, he shifted them to the hospital and complained the same to

the police. PWs.2 to 8 and 11 are the eyewitnesses cum injured and

they clearly explained the entire episode and events prior to, during and

after the accident fastening the liability on the petitioner for occurrence

of accident, injuries to some of them and death of Rajavva stating that

due to his rash, negligent and zigzag manner riding with two pillion

riders, lost control over the bike and dashed them. The evidence of

PWs.13 and 14 coupled with Exs.P6 to 20, injury certificates issued by

them and also Ex.P5 post-mortem report issued by PW13 clearly proved

the injuries sustained by PWs.2 to 8 and 11 as well as the petitioner in

the accident and death of Rajavva due to hemorrhagic shock as a result

of head injury in the accident.

6. PW9 is the witness for panchanama under Ex.P2 proving

the occurrence of accident in the place of offence. PW12 is the motor

vehicle inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle and opined under

Ex.P4 that there were no mechanical defects leading to the accident.

With the above cogent, convincing and unshaken evidence of

prosecution, the identity of the petitioner and his liability in committing

the accident due to his rash and negligent riding of crime vehicle, riding

along with two pillion riders against the rules, resulting in injuries to

PWs.2 to 8 and 11 and death of Rajavva is established without any

doubt. The cross-examination of above witnesses by the petitioner did

not gain any support to suspect or disbelieve their evidence or any

previous enmity compelling them to implicate the petitioner in a

criminal case. By taking all these facts and evidence adduced on record

into consideration, the trial Court has found guilty of the petitioner,

convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The learned appellate

Court, finding reasons for convicting the petitioner, has confirmed the

said findings. Findings of both the Courts below, so far they relate to

finding guilt of the petitioner are concerned, they are well reasoned and

were made after careful appreciation of evidence available on record

and hence, they cannot be found fault with by this Court.

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

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2006 i.e. for the last about fifteen

years the petitioner has been roaming around the Courts for defending

himself by facing mental agony and trauma. This itself is a sufficient

ground to take a lenient view in so far as the sentence of simple

imprisonment imposed on the petitioner by the Courts below is

concerned. Therefore, the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period

of one year imposed to the petitioner is hereby reduced to that of the

period of imprisonment which he has already undergone while

upholding the fine amount awarded to him by the trial Court.

8. Except the above modification in respect of period of

sentence of simple imprisonment, 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 : 08-09-2023 abb