Syed Saleem vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2581 Tel

               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.832 OF 2012
ORDER:

1 Heard Sri Y.Ashok Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Vizarath Ali, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the

State.

2 The petitioner herein was tried as accused by the learned XI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, in C.C.No.631 of

2008 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. During the

course of trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P.1 to P.6. The learned Magistrate having assessed the entire

evidence found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under

section 304-A of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and further

sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to suffer simple

imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said judgment dated

15.07.2011, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2011 on

the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences

under SCs & STs (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Secunderabad, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while

concurring with the findings arrived at by the trial Court dismissed the said

appeal by judgment dated 06.06.2012. Questioning the same, this revision

is preferred by the petitioner / accused.

3 The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08.02.2008 at 3.30

PM, while one N.V.Avinash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') was

proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 28 AJ 0241 from BATA road,

Secunderabad towards Patny cross roads, near Chitra Darga, the

petitioner being the driver of the Tipper bearing No.AP 11 W 5848 drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle

being driven by the deceased from behind and dragged the motorcycle

along with the deceased to a considerable distance causing multiple

injuries to him all over the body including head and thereby caused his

instantaneous death. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1 a case in

Cr.No.42 of 2008 was registered under Section 304-A of IPC and

investigated into and after completion of investigation the police filed the

charge sheet.

4 The factum of death of the deceased is not in dispute. P.W.1 is a

circumstantial witness. So his evidence cannot be taken into consideration

to decide the case. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 5, who are the direct

witnesses to the accident, goes to show that they identified the crime

vehicle with its registration number. The factum of involvement of the

vehicle in question in the instant case was proved by the evidence of

P.W.8 who took interim custody of the vehicle.

5 Now it has to be seen whether there is any material available on

record to connect the petitioner to the accident that took place in this

instant case. P.Ws.2 and 5 have categorically identified the petitioner as

the driver of the crime vehicle. The accident took place in broad day light

where there was sufficient time and opportunity to P.Ws.2 and 5 to see

the driver of the vehicle. P.W.2 deposed that when the public raised hue

and cry the petitioner stopped the vehicle, got down the vehicle, turned

his face back and ran away. The evidence available on record also goes to

show that after hitting the deceased from his behind, the driver of the

crime vehicle drove the same to some distance without stopping the

vehicle. This amply proves the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the tipper at the relevant point of time. The evidence of the Motor

Vehicles Inspector also goes to show that there was no mechanical defect

in the vehicle. P.Ws.2 and 5 have neither relationship with the deceased

nor have any amenity with the petitioner. So there was no cause for them

to depose against the petitioner. Moreover, to fix the responsibility on the

petitioner as the driver of the crime vehicle, the owner of the tipper filed

Crl.M.P.No.1262 of 2008 seeking interim custody of the vehicle, wherein

he mentioned at para No.7 that the petitioner was the driver of the

offending vehicle.

6 So all the above factors lead that the petitioner is the driver of the

crime vehicle at the time of accident, that he drove the same in a rash and

negligent manner and hit the deceased from his behind causing his

instantaneous death. Therefore, the prosecution could establish the guilt

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

beyond all reasonable doubt.

7 As far as the quantum of sentence imposed on the petitioner, the

petitioner was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year by

both the Courts below. However, since the offence is of the year 2008 and

since the petitioner has suffered mental agony and trauma all these years,

this Court intends to take lenient view insofar as the said sentence of

imprisonment is concerned. Accordingly, the sentence of rigorous

imprisonment for one year imposed on the petitioner is reduced to simple

imprisonment for three months.

8 With the above modification the criminal revision case is allowed

partly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal revision

case, shall stand closed.

------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 21.09.2023 K vsn