Doggela Sambaiah, Warangal ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep.By Pp., High ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2095 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1169 OF 2011
ORDER :

This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of

Criminal Procedure Code (for short ' Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner aggrieved

by the judgment dated 27.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2008 on

the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal

wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment against the

petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year vide

judgment in CC No.37 of 2005 dated 28.05.2008 was confirmed.

2. Heard Ms.T.Manjula, legal aid counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Vizarat Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/respondent.

3. The accusation against the petitioner is that on 16.06.2004

when one Gandham Ashok and his family members returning from

Vijayawada to Mancherial in TATA Sumo bearing No.AP 28 U 9090,

driven by Bhadari Ramakrishna @ Ramu, they reached outskirts of

Wardhannapet Village and passed DC Thanda, the petitioner, being the

driver-cum-owner of lorry bearing No.AP 5 T 5090 with coal load, came

in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the said TATA

Sumo due to which Vangala Preethi, Gandham Rakesh, Narendula

Krishna Kumari, Narendula Vishnu Priya, Gandham Swathi, Bhadri

Ramarksihna @ Ramu, Vangala Karunakar Swamy, Gandam Vijaya

Kumari and Vangala Savithri were crushed in the vehicle and sustained

severe injuries all over the body. When they were shifted to hospital,

out of them, Bhadri Ramakrishna @ Ramu, Vangala Karunakar

Swamy, Gandam Vijaya Kumari and Vangala Savithri succumbed due

to injuries. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.86 of 2004 for the offences

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

petitioner was registered. Upon completion of investigation, the police

laid charge-sheet and the same was numbered as CC No.37 of 2005

and the learned trial Court, upon examination of evidence available on

the record, in the form of PWs.1 to 22 and Exs.P1 to P31, found the

petitioner guilty and convicted and sentenced him to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A IPC stating that since the punishment for the said

offence, out of the offences alleged, is a major one, there was no need to

convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 337

and 338 of IPC. The said findings were confirmed by the learned IV

Additional Sessions (FTC) Judge, Warangal vide judgment dated

27.05.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2008.

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

petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case contending that

both the Courts below have not applied the maxim of res-ipsa-liquator

i.e. things speak for itself and that they failed to appreciate the evidence

available on record in his favour in a proper perspective and the rash

and negligent driving on the part of the TATA Sumo vehicle. On the

other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contends that findings

of both the Court below are well considered and reasonable and they

cannot be interfered by this Court and that the grounds urged by

learned counsel for the petitioner do not warrant any interference by

this Court in view of the concurrent findings.

5. PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the injured, victims and eye

witnesses to the accident, they clearly depicted the entire episode of

their pilgrimage and accident during their return journey fastening the

liability on the petitioner stating that due to his rash and negligent

driving of the crime vehicle only the accident had taken place. Their

sustaining injuries is proved through the evidence of PWs.9, 11, 12, 14

and 20, who issued Exs.P3 to P10 wound certificates explaining the

nature and gravity of wounds, they sustained. PWs.16 to 18, who are

the panch witnesses for the inquest conducted over the bodies of

deceased and SI of Wardhannapet, deposed about the death of four

persons in the accident. However, no doctor, who conducted autopsy

over the dead bodies of deceased was examined by the prosecution.

Post-mortem reports of deceased i.e. Exs.P15 to P18 were marked

through PW18, disclosing the cause of death as multiple injuries in the

road traffic accident.

6. There is no dispute regarding the accident and resultant

death of four persons and injuries to remaining inmates of the victim

vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime

vehicle at the crucial time of accident. Evidence of PW21, Motor Vehicle

Inspector, who issued Ex.P24, revealed that there were no mechanical

defects in the crime vehicle at the time of accident. The petitioner

denied his liability contending that he was not the driver of the crime

vehicle at the time of accident. Though PWs.2 to 4 did not identify the

petitioner as the driver of crime vehicle, PWs.1 and 6 have categorically

identified the petitioner as the driver at the time of accident. Further

PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 6 have categorically stated that due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle only the accident has

taken place. Further, PW8, who is the cleaner, worked on the crime

vehicle, also admitted the liability of the driver of the crime vehicle for

occurrence of accident but he did not identify the petitioner as its

driver. In that view of the matter, it can be presumed that being an

employee under the petitioner, he tried to render his assistant to help

the petitioner in getting acquittal. So, the involvement of the crime

vehicle in the accident is proved beyond reasonable doubt but the

petitioner is denying that he is the driver of the said vehicle at the time

of accident. Further, it is the contention of the petitioner that the

driver of the victim vehicle was in intoxicated condition at the time of

accident due to which the accident had taken place. But there is

nothing on record to prove the above said fact as the doctors, who

examined the body of deceased driver did not express any opinion

regarding the recitals of alcohol in his body. Ex.P31 trip sheet clearly

proved that the petitioner was assigned the duty of carrying the coal on

the crime vehicle at the time of accident. It is the burden of the

petitioner to cite the person who drove the crime vehicle at the time of

accident in his place against the assignment. In that view of the

matter, by relying on the evidence on record, the prosecution could able

to prove the identity of the petitioner as the driver of crime vehicle at

the time of accident.

7. Having contended several things denying his liability in the

subject matter accident, the petitioner failed to substantiate the same

with cogent and acceptable evidence and on the other hand, the

prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt. Keeping these facts in mind, the trial Court has

rightly found the petitioner guilty for committing the subject matter

accident resulting in death of four members and injuries to the

remaining inmates of the victim car. The same were confirmed by the

appellate Court. Findings of both the Courts below are quite

reasonable, made basing on the material available on record and hence,

they cannot be interfered with by this Court.

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

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2004 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 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.

9. 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