Nalini Ravinder Reddy, Nizamabad ... vs State Of A.P., Rept. By Pp. Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2098 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1466 OF 2011
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 08.07.2011 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.81 of 2010 on the file of the learned VI Additional

District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Kamareddy wherein

the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner to suffer simple

imprisonment for ten months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for the

offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and further to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC, in

default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month

under each count, awarded as per judgment dated 27.09.2010 in CC

No.123 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-

cum-Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Mobile), Kamareddy,

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 P.Shiva

Kumar.

3. Crime No.24 of 2005 for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A and 337 IPC was registered by the police of Bhiknoor

on the strength of Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW1 alleging that on

13.02.2005, when PW1 along with his friends were going in Tata Sumo

bearing No.AP 28 U 8902, near BTS Petrol Bunk, Sangameshwar

Village, the petitioner being the driver of the said vehicle drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed auto rickshaw

bearing No.AP 25 368 due to which the Sumo turned turtle and one of

the inmates died and others received injuries and the auto rickshaw

also completely damaged and driver of the said auto and one woman

aged 50 years, inmate of the auto also died on the spot and the inmates

of auto also sustained injuries. After completion of investigation, the

police laid charge-sheet, which was numbered as CC No.123 of 2006

and the trial Court upon considering the entire evidence available in

the form of PWs.1 to 18 and Exs.P1 to P27, found the petitioner guilty

and sentenced him as stated supra.

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 evidence of PWs.3 to 13, who did not

support the prosecution case and also the fact that no test

identification period was conducted to identify the driver.

5. PW1 is the complainant, injured and eye witness to the

scene of offence along with PWs.2 to 10. PWs.11 to 14 are the panch

witnesses for scene of inquest. PW15 is MVI, who inspected the crime

vehicle and gave report under Ex.P.16 stating that there were no

mechanical defects in the crime vehicle leading to accident. PWs.16 and

17 are the doctors, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of

deceased persons and treated the injured and issued Exs.P17 to 24.

PW18 is the investigating officer.

6. Though PWs.2 to 9 turned hostile, PWs.1 to 10 have, in

one voice, admitted that they sustained injuries in the subject accident

due to hit of Sumo and auto. PWs.1 and 10 have categorically stated

that due to the rash negligent driving of the petitioner only the accident

had taken place. They identified the petitioner before the Court as the

driver of the crime vehicle. Identification of the accused driver before

the Court is permissible under law. PWs.11 to 13 panch witnesses,

though turned hostile, they admitted their signatures on the

panchanamas. PW1, being the complainant of the accident, at first

clearly depicted the liability of the petitioner in committing the accident

resulting in death of three persons and injuries to others but later,

when he was recalled by filing a petition by the petitioner, he resiled

from his earlier version. When the circumstantial evidence coupled

with the medical evidence proved the liability of the driver, the hostile

nature of witnesses cannot weaken the case of the prosecution. It is a

fact to be taken into consideration that the petitioner is known to most

of the prosecution witnesses and hence, he may win over them and

hence, most of the witnesses, including the de-facto complainant (PW1)

turned hostile.

7. The rash and negligent driving of the petitioner was proved

through the evidence of PWs.1 to 10, which gained support from the

evidence of PW15, who upon inspection of the crime vehicle, issued

Ex.P16 opining that there were no mechanical defects in the crime

vehicle and only due to its high speed only the accident had taken

place. As per the evidence of PW15, the breaks of the crime vehicle

were intact and if the petitioner was in normal speed, he can control

the vehicle by applying the break but due to his high speed, he could

not control the vehicle. Evidence on record clearly established that

there were no other circumstances like damage of road, curves etc.,

leading to the accident.

8. The prosecution, by examining PWs.16 and 17 and

marking Exs.P17 to P24, P26 and P27 could able to prove the death of

three person and injuries to others due to the accident. Though the

petitioner contended several aspects denying his liability in occurrence

of accident, he failed to establish the same by adducing cogent and

convincing 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. Evaluating all these facts in a right

perspective, the trial Court has rightly found the guilt of the petitioner

and the appellate Court has confirmed the same. The grounds urged

by the petitioner through this criminal revision case do not warrant

interference of this Court in the well reasoned findings of both the

Courts below.

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

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2005 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 ten 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 under all counts.

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