Telangana High Court
D. Costa Raju, Mutyalbagh Of Hyderabad. vs The Stat Eof A.P., Rep. By Its P.P., ... on 3 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1550 OF 2009
ORDER:
The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court) at Nalgonda, in
CC.No.78 of 2006, vide Judgement dated 17.01.2008, for the offence
under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and also
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the accused
preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.20 of 2008 before the Judge, Family-
cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the learned Sessions
Judge, vide Judgment dated 14.09.2009, while dismissing the appeal
confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Aggrieved
by the same, present revision is filed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner and learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution was that while the deceased was
going on his bicycle on 17.03.2006 from Narketpally to Sripuram
village, the offending vehicle which was driven by the petitioner
dashed the cyclist. Then the petitioner drove away.
4. The identity of the driver was established by the prosecution
through the evidence of PW2. According to PW2 while he was on his
cycle, he found that the deceased and his father were also going on a
cycle. The Tata Qualis vehicle which was coming in opposite
direction at high speed dashed against the cycle on which the
deceased was sitting, resulting in total damage to the cycle and both
of them receiving injuries. The deceased was taken to the hospital
and while undergoing treatment he died. PW2 identified the accused
as the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioner is that PW2 though projected as an eye-witness, it
is highly improbable that he would have noticed the driver when it
was a hit and run case. According to the trial Court, the vehicle hit
the cycle and went away without stopping. In the said
circumstances, the question of PW2 identifying the accused who is a
stranger that too in night in a vehicle coming in the opposite
direction, is highly improbable. The identification by PW2 for the first
time in the Court without there being any Test Identification Parade
during the course of investigation casts any amount of doubt. Since
the said aspect was not considered by both the Courts below, the
finding has to be reversed.
6. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that
PW2 was present at the scene and his presence is not disputed. He
was the witness to the accident. In fact, he shifted the deceased to
the hospital. In the said circumstances, his evidence regarding the
identity cannot be disbelieved.
7. Having gone through the record, nothing is elicited during the
course of cross-examination of PW2 regarding identity of the
petitioner. Only for the reason of there being no Test Identification
Parade during the course of investigation, that itself will not entail
the accused to say that the identification itself for the first time in
the Court, cannot be relied on.
8. Admittedly, PW2 was present at the scene. He has witnessed
the accident. Accidents do not happen on daily basis. It will have an
impact on the mind of PW2 who had seen the accident.
9. In the said circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the
finding of the Court below while believing the version of PW2 in
identifying the revision petitioner.
10. Accordingly, conviction is confirmed. However, keeping in view
that there are no other similar cases pending against the accused,
and the incident is of the year 2006, this Court deems it appropriate
to reduce the sentence of imprisonment to three months.
11. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed reducing
the sentence of imprisonment of the revision petitioner to three
months. Trial Court is directed to cause appearance of the revision
petitioner/Accused and send him to prison to serve out the
remaining part of the sentence.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 03.07.2024
tk
