Manthri Lingam vs The State Of A.P. Rep., By Its Pp
2023 Latest Caselaw 2094 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.913 OF 2012
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 18.06.2012 in Criminal

Appeal No.83 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions

Judge, Karimnagar wherein the conviction and sentence of simple

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

Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for

the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for

short 'IPC') awarded against the petitioner vide judgment dated

24.08.2011 in CC No.222 of 2009 on the file of the learned Special

Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Karimnagar was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

representing learned Public Prosecutor for State/respondent. None

appeared on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri JC Francis.

3. Crime No.101 of 2008 was registered by the police,

Karimnagar for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC

against the petitioner alleging that on 13.06.2008, while Nalumachu

Venu Kumar was proceeding to his house on his TVS Champ bearing

No.AP15 AH 4742, at 03.25 P.M., in front of Taj Baba Consultancy, the

petitioner being the driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 3529 of

Sircilla Depot came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed

and dashed him from back side due to which, said Venu Kumar

sustained grievous injuries and succumbed in the transit to the

hospital. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and

the same was numbered as CC No.222 of 2009, the learned Special

Judicial Magistrate (Excise), Karimnagar, upon examination of entire

evidence available on record in the form of PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to

P8, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated

supra. The said findings were confirmed by the learned IV Additional

Sessions Judge (FTC) at Karimnagar as per judgment dated 18.06.2012

in Criminal Appeal No.83 of 2011.

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

petitioner has filed the present criminal revision case contending that

both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence in right

perspective, failed to consider the contributory negligence on the part of

the deceased and without there being any evidence to convict the

petitioner. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

contends that the findings of both the Courts below do not warrant any

interference of this Court as they were made on scrupulous evaluation

of entire evidence on record.

5. PW1 is the wife of deceased, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint.

PWs.2 and 6 are the eyewitnesses to the accident. PW3 is the

photographer who had taken photos under Ex.P3. PW4 is the Motor

Vehicle Inspector, who submitted Ex.P4 report opining that there were

no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. PW5 conducted autopsy

over the dead body of deceased under Ex.P5 opining that due to the

multiple injuries sustained in the accident only, the deceased died.

PW7 is the witness for inquest and crime details form. PWs.8 and 9

are the Investigating Officers.

6. The occurrence of accident and death of the deceased was

not disputed by the petitioner. His contention is that the deceased

drove his moped in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the road

divider but there was no involvement of the crime vehicle. So far as the

liability of the petitioner, the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 clearly

established that due to the rash negligent driving of the petitioner only,

the accident had taken place resulting in injuries to the deceased. The

said fact was informed to PW1 over phone by PW6. Though PW2

turned hostile, evidence of PW6 remained constant to prove the guilt of

the petitioner. Further, PW6 identified the petitioner as the driver of

the crime vehicle. Though the petitioner contended that by taking

money from the heirs of deceased, PW6 deposed false against the

petitioner, the same is not proved by way of cogent and convincing

evidence by the petitioner. The said fact is far beyond the probabilities.

Evidence of PW8 investigating officer discloses the voluntarily surrender

of the petitioner admitting his misdeed of committing the accident.

Form 54 also showed the petitioner was assigned the duty on the crime

vehicle on that particular day. Evidence of PW4 MVI clearly revealed

that there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle. Further,

the crime vehicle hit the moped from backside and this fact clearly

disclosed the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner as, if the rider

of the moped drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, it can be

within the vision of the driver of the vehicle behind it and he can easily

control the situate.

7. Though the petitioner contended several aspects denying

his liability in occurrence of accident, he failed to establish the same by

adducing evidence. Furthermore, he did not examine anybody including

himself for the reasons best known to him. Cross-examination of

prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material to disbelieve

the prosecution case.

8. Taking into consideration all these facts, both the Courts

below have rightly found guilty of the petitioner and the said findings

are sustained and no interference is warranted. The grounds urged by

the petitioner do not invite this Court to interfere with the well

considered findings of both the Courts below.

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

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2008 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 six months 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.

10. 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