Shaik Abdul Rassol vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2110 Tel

                THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
                CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1451 OF 2011
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 07.07.2011 passed by the learned IV

Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District in Criminal Appeal

No.185 of 2007 wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment

imposed against the petitioner to suffer simple imprisonment for a

period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of

payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for three

months, vide judgment dated 16.11.2007 in CC No.851 of 2005 by the

learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Miyapur 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 V.Venkata

Mayur.

3. The main crux of the case of the prosecution leading to

registration of Crime No.23 of 2003 of Police Station, Sherilingampally

against the petitioner herein is that on 09.02.2003, at about 1.45 P.M.,

the petitioner drove lorry bearing No.AP 12 U 3824 in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed Luna bearing No.AIS 9778 and also one

more lorry resulting in death of the rider of said Luna. After

registration of crime, the police, upon completion of investigation, laid a

charge-sheet vide CC No.581 of 2005 against the petitioner fastening

liability for committing accident resulting in death of one person. The

Court below, upon consideration of entire material available on record,

in the form of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P6, found guilty of the

petitioner and sentenced him as referred to supra. The said findings

were confirmed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga

Reddy District vide judgment dated 07.07.2011 in Crl.A.No.185 of

2011.

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

petitioner preferred the present criminal revision case alleging that they

were made without considering the evidence available on record in his

favour especially PW3 and also properly appreciating the evidence. 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. PW1 was standing at the petrol bunk near the accident

spot at the time of accident and he witnessed the crime vehicle coming

in rash and negligent manner and dashed the Luna and tyres of the

said vehicle ran over the body of rider of Luna due to which he died on

the spot and thereafter the crime vehicle also dashed another lorry

driven by PW3. Both PWs.1 and 3 have categorically blamed the crime

vehicle for occurrence of incident resulting in death of the deceased.

The petitioner did not deny his presence at the spot and his driving the

crime vehicle. The contention of the petitioner is that due to the rash

and negligent driving of PW3, being driver of another lorry only the

accident had taken place and the petitioner was falsely implicated in

this regard.

6. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner himself voluntarily

surrendered before the police admitting his guilt for occurrence of

accident. PW1 has categorically stated the truth fastening the liability

on the petitioner. PW2 was the witness for scene of offence

panchanama under Ex.P1, PW4 is the witness for inquest panchanama

under Ex.P3, PW5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected and

reported under Ex.P4 that there were no mechanical defects in the

crime vehicle leading to accident, PW6 conducted autopsy over the body

of deceased and issued Ex.P5 post-mortem report opining that due to

multiple crush injuries the deceased died. PW7 is the investigating

officer who registered FIR under Ex.P6 and did investigation.

7. It is a clear cut case of accident caused due to the rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner being driver of crime vehicle resulting

in death of deceased and the said fact is clinchingly proved through the

evidence of PWs.1 and 3, eye witnesses and PWs.2 and 4 to 7 and

documents marked under Exs.P1 to P6. The defence failed to elicit any

incriminating evidence to disbelieve the version of prosecution

witnesses. 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.

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

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2003 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.

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