B.Arjun Reddy vs The State Of A.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 2733 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
             CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.954 OF 2012
ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 and

401 of Criminal Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused

aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.06.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.592

of 2011 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences

Under SCs&STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Secunderabad wherein the conviction and sentence of

imprisonment awarded to the petitioner to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

in default of payment of fine amount to suffer simple imprisonment for

a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A

IPC and further to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six

months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable

under Section 337 of IPC, directing that the sentences shall run

concurrently vide judgment dated 24.11.2011 passed in CC No.467 of

2008, by the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Secunderabad, was modified directing the petitioner to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for six months instead of two years by upholding the fine

amount for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC while

confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment

awarded to the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 337

of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Gowri Shanker, learned counsel representing on

behalf of Sri Krishna Reddy Putta, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing

learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

3. The main accusation against the petitioner herein was that

on 05.01.2007 at about 5.15 a.m. when the deceased Naveen Reddy

and his brother/PW1, were proceeding towards Erragadda of

Hyderabad with a load of rice bags in auto trolley bearing No.AP 28 W

6596, near the office of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Flyover,

the petitioner, being the driver of the said auto, drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry bearing

No.AP5 Y 266, parked to rectify the technical problem, due to which,

Naveen Reddy succumbed while undergoing treatment in NIMS and the

petitioner and PW1 sustained injuries. PW8, duty constable recorded

the statements of the injured, who were admitted in Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. Crime No.2 of 2007 for the offence punishable under

Section 337 of Indian Penal Code was registered and subsequently

Section 304-A of IPC was added. Upon completion of investigation, the

police laid charge-sheet vide CC No.467 of 2008, wherein learned X

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, upon

considering the entire material available on record, found the petitioner

guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. The learned

appellate Court, modified the findings of the trial Court, as stated

supra.

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

petitioner filed the present criminal revision case mainly contending

that both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that the deceased

died after discharge from the hospital and it clearly proves that he died

not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Further, Investigating

officer and the doctor who treated the deceased have not been

examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision

case stating that the findings of both the Courts below are well

reasoned and interference of this Court is not warranted.

5. PW2 is the brother of deceased, who accompanied the

deceased in the crime vehicle and sustained injuries along with the

petitioner and deceased in the accident. PW8 recorded the statements

of the injured. PW2 is the driver of the stationed lorry, which was hit

by the auto from it's behind. PW2 deposed that due to technical

problem, he parked the lorry at the spot by taking all precautions and

when they were attending the repair works with the assistance of PW3,

the petitioner hit their lorry in a rash and negligent manner with the

subject auto. PW4 conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of

PW5 under Ex.P1 over the body of the deceased. PW6 is the father of

the deceased and PW1 and he narrated the facts relating prior to

accident and after the accident. PW7 treated the injured and issued

wound certificates under Exs.P.2 to P4. PW8 recorded the statement of

deceased under Ex.P5. PW9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, he gave

report under Ex.P6 certifying that there were no mechanical defects in

the crime vehicle at the time of occurrence of accident. PW10 is the

doctor, who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased and gave

Exs.P7/PME Certificate and P8/final opinion certifying the cause of

death of deceased as head injury.

6. There is no dispute regarding occurrence of accident and

sustaining injuries to the petitioner, PW1 and deceased. The

prosecution could able to prove the same by adducing substantial

evidence. PW1 deposed that inspite of their repeated requests to drive

the auto slowly, the petitioner was negligent and rash in driving the

auto. PWs.2 and 3 clearly deposed the rash and negligent manner

driving of the petitioner in hitting the stationed lorry from it's behind.

Ex.P1, statement of deceased, recorded by PW8, corroborated the

deposition of PWs.1 to 3 regarding the rash and negligent driving of the

petitioner. Further it is proved that there were no mechanical defects

in the auto leading to accident. Further, as per the evidence of PW6,

the petitioner is their relative. Further, there is no whisper regarding

previous enmity between the petitioner and PWs.1 and 6 or the

deceased to implicate him in a criminal case.

7. The contention of the petitioner that either the doctor, who

treated the deceased or the investigating officer, who conducted the

investigation are examined by the prosecution. When the prosecution

witnesses have clearly deposed the rash and negligent manner driving

of the petitioner pointing out his guilt and that the contents of the

charge-sheet are clearly explaining the same, non-examination of

investigating officer by the prosecution does not weaken the

prosecution case. Furthermore, the petitioner has every opportunity

and right to invite the investigating officer into the witness box to elicit

the incriminating material, if any, in their favour. But the petitioner

did not initiate such steps. Further, the evidence of PW10, who

conducted autopsy over the body of deceased corroborated by contents

of Exs.P7 and 8 clearly deposed that due to head injury, the deceased

died. This itself is sufficient to hold that due to the injuries sustained

by the deceased in the accident only he died.

8. Though several contentions were put-forth by learned

counsel for the petitioner, they remained unproved since no

corroborative material is adduced on behalf of the petitioner or elicited

during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. There

is nothing on record to disbelieve the prosecution case. The trial Court,

upon meticulously examining the entire material available on record,

has rightly found the guilt of the petitioner for committing the accident

due to his rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. The

appellate Court has rightly confirmed the said findings regarding the

guilt of the petitioner but modified the sentence opining that quantum

of sentence imposed by the trial Court is excessive. In that view of the

matter, this Court has no occasion or reason to interfere with the said

findings as they are sustainable and made on reasonable grounds.

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

for the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC is

concerned, it is a fact to be taken into consideration that since

occurrence of accident i.e. in the year 2007, the petitioner has been

roaming around the Courts to defend himself from the case by facing

mental agony and trauma, which itself is a sufficient ground to take

lenient view against him. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment

imposed to the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section

304-A and 337 of IPC 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 Courts below 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 : 26-09-2023 abb