Telangana High Court
Venugopal Jayaraman vs The State Of A.P., on 29 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1604 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/Accused was convicted by the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, in
CC.No.93/2007 vide Judgment dated 17.12.2007 and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code. The said conviction was confirmed by the
Sessions Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge,
Nalgonda, in Crl.A.No.168 of 2007 vide Judgment dated 16.09.2009.
Aggrieved by the said confirmation, the revision petitioner/Accused
is before this Court.
2. Heard both sides.
3. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner is that while he
was driving the Swaraj Mazda van bearing No.TN 20 AZ 6301 which
is the offending vehicle, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner resulting in running over the sheep and also the deceased.
45 sheep died and 8 sheep were injured and one woman namely
M.Kanakamma died. The said incident happened on 13.12.2006.
4. During the course of investigation, the accused surrendered on
18.12.2006. The police having concluded investigation filed charge
sheet against the petitioner.
5. The trial Court examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to
P62. The Courts below found that PWs.1, 2 and 3 were eye-witnesses
to the said incident. Having running over the sheep and the woman,
the driver left the vehicle and fled from the scene. The Motor Vehicle
Inspector was also examined as PW5 who stated that there was no
mechanical defect in the vehicle. Considering the evidence on record,
the trial Court convicted the revision petitioner. The said conviction
was confirmed by the Sessions Court in appeal.
6. The legal aid counsel Sri Mir Mazher Ali Khan appearing on
behalf of revision petitioner would submit that the driver was a
stranger and it is highly improbable that PWs.1 to 3 would have
identified him since the vehicle stopped at a distance and the driver
had fled. There was no Test Identification Parade held to identify the
accused. Only on the basis of his surrender, the Courts below have
come to the conclusion that the appellant was the driver. Since the
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be believed, revision has to be allowed.
7. As seen from the manner in which the accident had taken
place, more than 45 sheep died on the road including the deceased.
PW.1 was present along with the sheep. PWs.2 and 3 were also
present at the scene. The manner in which the accident had taken
place when the vehicle had run over nearly 45 sheep, there is no
doubt left that the driver had driven the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner resulting in death of 45 sheep and the death of the
woman who was along with the sheep. In such a case, the identity of
the driver at the scene was established by the evidence of PWs.1 to 3.
Their evidence cannot be brushed aside only on the ground that the
driver was a stranger. The accident happened at 10.00 A.M and
immediately at 10.30 A.M., Police complaint was lodged giving details
of the vehicle. Only for the reason of the driver surrendering 5 days
after the incident will not dilute the identity of the driver in any
manner. During the course of investigation, even if the driver
surrenders that does not mean that the driver has been falsely
implicated. Since the circumstances of the case are convincing and
also the evidence of eye-witnesses PWs.1 to 3 is convincing, this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction.
8. Accordingly, the revision fails and dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 29.04.2024
tk
