Telangana High Court
Mohd. Hameed, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 22 July, 2024
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.82 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner
aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.11.2009 in Crl.A.No.152
of 2006, on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge
(FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State.
3. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence
under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. The said
conviction when questioned in appeal was confirmed by the
learned Sessions Judge.
4. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
was the Driver of an Auto bearing No.AP-13V-4949. While he
had several passengers including P.Ws.1 to 5 and others, he
drove the vehicle at a high speed resulting in the vehicle
turning turtle. On account of the said accident, two persons
died and others received injuries.
5. On the basis of the complaint filed, the Police registered
the case and filed charge sheet for the above said offences.
During the course of trial, P.W.1, PWs. 3 and 4 who are the
relatives of both the deceased, P.Ws.5 to 8 who are the
injured and other witnesses were examined including Motor
Vehicle Inspector-P.W.18. Further Exs.P.1 to P.22 were
marked. Learned Magistrate found favour with the version of
the witnesses that the vehicle was driven in a rash and
negligent manner and at a high speed resulting in the
accident and accordingly conviction was recorded. Learned
Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that it would not suffice if the witnesses stated
that the vehicle was driven at a high speed. Unless there was
rash and negligent driving deliberately resulting the accident,
the question of attracting an offence under Section 304-A of
IPC does not arise. She relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Satish 1 and the
judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Gurucharan
Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2. Counsel further
argued that there was no Test Identification Parade to
MANU/SC/1241/1998
MANU/HP/0054/1989
identify the revision petitioner. In the absence of any Test
Identification proceedings, the identification of the accused
cannot be accepted by the Court. In support of her
contentions, she relied on the judgment of High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Jarapala Deepala and Ors vs. State of
A.P 3. Further counsel submits that FIR is anti-timed, for
which reason also prosecution has to fail. Counsel relied on
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sudarshan and
Ors vs. State of Maharashtra 4.
7. According to the evidence of injured witnesses including
P.W.1, Auto was overloaded, in fact witnesses have cautioned
the Driver to drive the vehicle slowly, however, without
heeding to the advice of the passengers, the vehicle was
driven at a high speed resulting in the Auto turning turtle.
The said act of overloading the Auto and driving at a high
speed inspite of passengers pleading the Driver to go at a
slow pace would indicate that Driver was rash and negligent
in his driving.
8. All the witnesses are passengers in the Auto who have
identified the Driver, as such the identification of the injured
MANU/AP/0868/2005
MANU/SC/0504/2014
cannot be brush aside, only for the reason there being no
Test Identification Parade. Not conducting Test Identification
Parade in the present circumstances of the case is of no
consequence and the evidence of witnesses identification of
the accused can be relied on.
9. There are no grounds to interfere with the findings of
the Court below. However, keeping in view the accident is of
the year, 2001 and the petitioner now is aged more than 50
years, the sentence of imprisonment of two years under
Section 304-A of IPC is be reduced to one year. The sentence
of imprisonment imposed under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC
remain unaltered.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is partly
allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 22.07.2024
dv
