G. Mahabub, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2023 Latest Caselaw 2735 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
            CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1025 OF 2011
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 21.04.2011 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2010, on

the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar wherein the

conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also to suffer simple

imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable

under Section 337 of IPC directing both the sentences to run

concurrently, was confirmed.

2. Heard Ms.K.Pallavi, learned counsel representing on behalf

of Sri Venkata Rao Ravulapalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Sri Vizarath Ali, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, representing

learned Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.

3. The accusation against the petitioner herein was that he

being driver of lorry bearing No.AAA 9036, on 15.02.2004 at about

20.30 hours drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high

speed, near IOC Petrol Bunk, NH-7, Thimmapur Village and took

sudden right turn without indicating or giving any signal due to which,

the rider of Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing No.AP 13D 1698, coming

behind the said lorry, dashed the lorry resulting in death of one person

and injuries to two others. Basing on the complaint of PW7/constable

who witnessed the scene, the police registered crime No.34 of 2004

under Sections 304-A and 337 of IPC against the petitioner,

investigated into and laid charge-sheet, which was numbered as CC

No.50 of 2005. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First class,

Shadnagar, upon considering the evidence on record, found the

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

learned Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, vide judgment dated

21.04.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.85 of 2010 confirmed the said

findings.

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

petitioner filed the present revision case contending that both the

Courts below have erroneously found the petitioner guilty without

appreciating the evidence available on record in a right perspective, did

not take into consideration the fact of not conducting identification

parade, liability and negligence of the rider of the victim motor cycle for

committing the accident. 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. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner

and his identification as the driver of the crime vehicle, the only eye

witness available is PW7, Police Constable as the rider and one pillion

rider of the victim motor cycle viz. Raju and Venkatesh died due to the

injuries sustained by them in the accident and another pillion rider

Anjaiah died subsequently.

6. PW7 lodged Ex.P3 complaint, he deposed that after

completion of his duty, while returning to Kothur from Thimmapur, at

about 04.50 p.m. near IOC Petrol Bunk, he saw the crime vehicle

proceeding in a rash and negligent manner and took right turn without

giving any signal due to which, the motor cycle behind the lorry hit the

lorry due to which three persons riding on the said motor cycle

sustained bleedings injuries, he shifted them to Osmania General

Hospital in a jeep. He clearly identified the petitioner as the driver of

the same. Though he failed to depose correct number of the crime lorry

during his examination and his wrong mentioning of the injured name,

they cannot go into the root of the case as due to efflux of time, such

minor discrepancies may occur. PW7 himself took the injured to the

hospital and got them admitted and the same is proved through wound

certificate of Anjaiah. Further, he has no acquaintance or previous

rivalry with the petitioner to depose against him. Ex.P6/P12 report

issued by Motor Vehicle Inspector shows that there were no mechanical

defects in the crime vehicle leading to accident.

7. As per contents of Exs.P1 and P4 scene of panchanama of

Venkatesh and Raju, Exs.P8 and 9 their post-mortem reports, Ex.P4

inquest panchanama of Raju, Ex.P2 scene of offence panchanama,

Ex.P5 crime detail form, death of said Venkatesh and Raju due to the

injuries sustained in the accident was clinchingly established.

Evidence of PWs.3 and 8 who are the mediators for Ex.P.1, PWs.10 and

11, who are the mediators for P4, PW14, who treated Anjaiah and

issued would certificate, PW15, who conducted autopsy over the bodies

of deceased Venkataiah and Raju under Exs.P9 and P10 strengthened

the prosecution case that Venkataiah and Raju died due to the injuries

sustained in the accident and Anjaiah sustained injuries.

8. PWs.1, 2, 5, 6 and 9 are the relatives of deceased

Venkatesh and Raju and their evidence is only regarding the events

subsequent to the accident and they are the hear say evidence and

their evidence cannot produce any material to point out the liability of

the petitioner. PWs.3 and 8 are the mediators of inquest of corpse of

G.Venkatesh. PWs.4 and 12 are the mediators for crime detail form.

PWs.13, 16 and 17 are the police officials, who took part in the

investigation.

9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the rider of the victim motor cycle did not take safety measures to

protect himself and also that he was negligent in allowing two persons

as pillion riders cannot sustain as the evidence on record clearly proved

that due to the negligent act on the part of the petitioner in suddenly

taking turn without giving any signal or indication only the accident

had taken place.

10. 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 confirmed the said findings. 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.

11. So far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, it is a

fact to be taken into consideration that since inception of the incident,

i.e. 2004, 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. Accordingly,

this Court is inclined to decrease the sentence of imprisonment

awarded to the petitioner for all counts to the period which he already

underwent while upholding the fine amount.

12. Except the above modification, this criminal revision case

is dismissed in all other aspects. 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