G.Yadaiah, Medchal, R.R.District vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P.,High ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 3249 Tel

Telangana High Court

G.Yadaiah, Medchal, R.R.District vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By P.P.,High ... on 14 August, 2024

                                 1




     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
     CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1397 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the

petitioner/accused aggrieved by the judgment dated

12.05.2010 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2010, confirming the order

dated 18.12.2009 in C.C.No.641 of 2006 passed by the IX

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated .

2. Continuously, there is no representation on behalf of

the appellant. Even, today, there is no representation for the

appellant, though the matter is posted under the caption 'for

dismissal'. I have gone through the record and heard the

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.

3. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence

under Section 304-A of IPC. Learned Sessions Judge

confirming the conviction reduced the sentence of six months

imprisonment imposed by the trial Court to three months.

4. Briefly, the case against the revision petitioner is that

he was the Driver of a Tipper. On 06.01.2006, the said

Tipper was driven in a reverse direction negligently, for which

reason, it dashed against the bus and the back door of the

bus was fully damaged and one of the passenger namely

Gaddam Venugopal fell on the road, received injuries and

died on the way to hospital.

5. The complaint was filed, case was investigated and

charge sheet was laid by the Police.

6. Learned Magistrate examined P.W.1/complainant who

is also an eye-witness, P.W.2-scene of offence panch, P.W.3-

post mortem examination Doctor and P.Ws.4 and 5 are Police

officials. On the basis of evidence of P.W.1 and the manner

in which the accident had taken place, the trial Court found

that accused was guilty, accordingly, convicted him for 6

months imprisonment under Section 304-A of IPC.

7. In the appeal, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the

conviction.

8. The grounds raised before the Court below and also in

the present Revision are that there was no Test Identification

Parade which was conducted immediately after registration of

the crime. Accordingly, identification after 4 years of the

incident cannot be believed. In fact, the Driver was a

stranger to P.W.1.

9. The manner in which the accident had taken place

resulted in back portion of the bus being damaged and one

passenger in the bus falling down and receiving fatal injuries.

In the said circumstances, the identity of the person who had

driven the vehicle/Tipper would be remembered for a very

long time. The eye-witness account of P.W.1 cannot be

disbelieved only on the ground that Test Identification Parade

was not conducted.

10. There are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent

findings of the Courts below convicting the accused.

However, keeping in view that the incident is of the year,

2006 and nearly 18 years have passed by, the conviction as

directed by the Sessions Court is upheld. The trial Court

shall cause appearance of the accused and send him to

prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly

allowed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 14.08.2024 dv