Erukala Gattaiah, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2518 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.999 OF 2012
ORDER :

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

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

aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.7 of

2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge at

Karimnagar wherein the conviction and sentence of imprisonment

awarded to the petitioner to suffer imprisonment for a period of nine

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

under Section 304-A IPC and also to suffer imprisonment for one

month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under

Section 3/181 of MV Act and in default of payment of fine amount to

undergo additional imprisonment each for a period of four months for

both the counts, directing the sentences to run one after another

consequently, awarded vide judgment dated 25.01.2012 in CC No.122

of 2007, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Manthani, was confirmed.

2. Heard Sri Prem Sai, learned counsel representing Sri

G.Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vizarat Ali,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing learned Public

Prosecutor for State/respondent.

3. The main accusation against the petitioner is that on the

fateful day of unforeseen incident of accident, while returning to his

house, the petitioner drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner,

lost control over it due to which, the said tractor turned turtle resulting

in death of J.Ramesh i.e. the brother of PW1 and injuries to PW3, who

are travelling along with the petitioner on the said tractor. Accordingly,

on the complaint of PW1, the police registered Crime No.124 of 2006

and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid and

numbered as CC No.122 of 2007 and the learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Manthani, upon consideration of evidence available on

record, found the petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him, as

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

Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar in Criminal Appeal No.7

of 2012.

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 failed to appreciate the evidence in a right

perspective, circumstances surrounded the scene of offence, relied

upon the uncorroborated and inconsistent evidence of prosecution

witnesses and made on surmises and conjectures. On the other hand,

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that findings of both the

Courts below are well considered and there is no reason or occasion for

this Court to interfere with the same.

5. This Court perused the judgments of both the Courts

below. The petitioner did not deny the accident, involvement of crime

vehicle and resultant death of deceased but he vehemently contended

that there was no negligence on his part. Evidence of PW6, MVI, also

goes against the petitioner's defence stating under Ex.P4 report that

there were no mechanical defects in the crime vehicle at the time of

accident and that the breaks of the vehicle were intact. The petitioner

failed to explain the compelling conditions beyond his control for

occurrence of accident. He did not adduce any evidence either oral or

documentary to prove his innocence.

6. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and brother of the

deceased, who lodged Ex.P1 complaint and stated that he was present

in the fields at the time of accident and upon hearing the sound, he

rushed to the spot and saw the tractor turning turtle and his brother

found dead on the spot due to the rash and negligent driving of the

petitioner. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. PW3 is the injured and eye

witness to the accident he too blamed the petitioner for his rash and

negligent driving causing injuries to him and death of the deceased due

to his falling beneath the tractor. PW4 is a panch witness for inquest of

the deceased under Ex.P2 and observed abrasions over the chest part

of the deceased. PW5 is another panch witness for scene of offence

under Ex.P3. PWs.7 and 8 are the investigating officers. The petitioner

voluntarily surrendered himself before PW8 and hence, there is no

question of his identity as the driver of the crime vehicle at the crucial

time. The prosecution evidence is found to be corroborative and there

is no inconsistency in it and hence, there is no necessity for

disbelieving the same. Furthermore, there is no whisper regarding

previous enmity or otherwise between the petitioner and the

prosecution witnesses or the deceased to implicate the petitioner in a

criminal case.

7. The petitioner failed to produce his driving licence and

hence, it seems, without having valid driving licence he drove the crime

vehicle resulting in accident and hence, he is liable to be punished

under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner did not elicit

any incriminating material from the cross-examination of prosecution

witness and further, he did not adduce any oral or documentary

evidence, as stated supra. When all the above discussed facts,

circumstances and evidence on record is meticulously scrutinized, the

guilt of the petitioner is glaring, proving his rash and negligent driving

at the time of accident resulting in death of deceased and injuries to

himself and also PW3.

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

below have correctly found the petitioner guilty for his rash and

negligent driving resulting in death of the deceased and injuries to

PW3. The said findings are reasonable and sustained. The grounds

urged by the petitioner do not have any force inviting this Court to

interfere with the same.

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

petitioner is concerned, from the year 2006 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

imprisonment 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 for all

counts.

10. Except the above modification in respect of period of

sentence of 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 : 20-09-2023 Abb