Telangana High Court
Kavali Venkataiah, vs State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 19 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.316 OF 2010
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/accused was convicted by the trial
Court and also the said conviction was confirmed in appeal by the
Sessions Court for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338
of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.11.2002, while the
two deceased along with twenty others were going in a Tractor, the
petitioner drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed. Due to which the Tractor turned turtle into the tank. On
account of the said accident, two persons sustained bleeding injuries
and died on the spot and the others who are examined as PWs.1 to 3,
5 and 15 were also injured in the accident.
3. The trial Court examined, in all, 22 witnesses and 16 wound
certificates were also filed by the witnesses. On the basis of the
manner in which the accident had taken place and relying on the
evidence of 16 injured witnesses, the Court below convicted the
petitioner. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the
conviction.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner argued
that firstly, identity of the driver is in dispute. In fact, witnesses
themselves speak about one Anjaneyulu who was the driver of the
Tractor. Secondly, all the injured witnesses speak about the high
speed of the Tractor in driving. Counsel submits that high speed
would not mean that the Tractor was driven in a rash and negligent
manner, the ingredients of rashness and negligence have to be
satisfied to convict the accused under section 304-A of the IPC.
5. Learned counsel relied on the following Judgments.
i) State of Karnataka v. Satish (1998) 8 SCC 493
ii) G.Srinivasulu v. State of A.P. in Crl.R.C.No.1602 of 2007,
dt.21.03.2023. MANU/TL/0464/2023
iii) Naresh Giri v. State of M.P. (MANU/SC?4297/2007)
iv) K.Rajaiah v. State of A.P. (MANU/AP/0304/2010
6. Counsel further argued that it is not as though the deceased
received injuries while sitting in the trailer, but they fell down and on
account of the contusion to the head, they died. In the said
circumstances, none of the ingredients of Section 304-A are made
out.
7. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the findings
of the Court below, needs no interference.
8. All the injured witnesses have specifically stated that the
villagers were sitting in the trailer of the tractor. Initially, though it
was driven by one Anjaneyulu, the petitioner took over and driven
the Tractor. While going on the road, according to the witnesses, at
high speed he lost balance and the vehicle turned turtle. The said
incident happened when the tractor was being driven on crushed
granite stones.
9. Honourable Supreme Court held that the maxim res ipsa
loquitor would not apply in such cases. The said law laid down by the
Supreme Court cannot be disputed. However, every case has to be
adjudicated on the facts of those cases.
10. The tractor was filled with more than 20 villagers and it was
being driven on stones (kankara) which resulted in the vehicle
turning turtle. Firstly, the case is one of denial by the revision
petitioner. Secondly, he has not given any explanation that on
account of either rough road or the crushed granite stones which
were on the road, he could not balance the said vehicle or control the
vehicle. In the event of any such rough road, it is for the driver to
take precaution when so many persons are travelling in the said
tractor.
11. The version given by the witnesses regarding high speed would
include negligence of the driver going at high speed in such road
conditions. I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the Court
below while convicting the revision petitioner. However, keeping in
view that the accident is of the year 2002, nearly 22 years have
passed by, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to three months.
12. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed and the
conviction recorded by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC) Mahabubnagar, in Crl.A.No.19 of 2008, dated 17.02.2010,
confirming the conviction and sentence of Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Shadnagar in CC.No.364/2003, is hereby modified. The Trial
Court shall cause appearance of the revision petitioner/accused and
send him to prison to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 19.07.2024
tk
