Telangana High Court
Samala Mal Reddy, Turkaguda V, ... vs The State Of A.P., Through P.P., ... on 26 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2007 OF 2009
ORDER:
1. The revision petitioner/Accused was convicted for the
offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code by the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two years. In appeal, the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge
while confirming the conviction modified the sentence of
imprisonment from two years to one year.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner
was a driver of RTC bus. PW1 is the mother of the deceased.
P.W.1 and the deceased went to police hospital at Malakpet on
21.12.2004. When the deceased was crossing to the other side
of the road, the RTC bus driven by the petitioner dashed
against the deceased resulting in his instantaneous death. The
trial Judge having considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 out of
whom PWs.2 and 7 are eye witnesses, found that the petitioner
was guilty and accordingly convicted him. The conviction was
confirmed in appeal.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner
would submit that the case of rash and negligent driving and
causing accident was not proved against the petitioner. In fact,
the evidence on record would go to show that there was a
divider on the road which is of two feet height and the deceased
was crossing road when he fell underneath the rear tyres of the
bus. In the said circumstances when the person had fallen
under the rear tyres, it can not be said that the driver was
negligent. Further, learned counsel has taken this Court
through the evidence of P.W.1/mother of the deceased and
P.W.6/Inspector, who investigated the case to substantiate that
the deceased fell underneath the rear tyres of the bus. Learned
counsel relied on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Manish Jalan v. State of Karnataka 1 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has enhanced the fine amount while reducing
the imprisonment to the period already undergone. He also
relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sagar
Lolienkar v. State of Goa and another2 wherein also the
(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 225
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 161
substantive sentence was reduced to the period already
undergone while enhancing the fine amount.
4. Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of this Court
in Crl.R.C.No.1602 of 2007, dt.21.03.2023 and the Judgment
of High Court of Karnataka in K.Srinivas v. State of
Karnataka3.
5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on the other hand
argued that the bus driver who is the petitioner, should have
taken precaution while driving on the road. In the absence of
taking precaution, the accident would itself indicate that the
bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the
death of the deceased.
6. P.W.1, who was the mother of the deceased stated that
the deceased came underneath the rear tyres of the bus.
P.W.6-Inspector stated that rough sketch was drawn and the
photographs were also taken. However, the rough sketch was
not produced before the trial Court. The sketch would come in
handy to the Court to ascertain regarding the scene of the
offence and would be corroborate the version given by either of
MANU/KA/0846/2002: 2002 (3) KCCR 1961
the parties. The sketch would also help the Court in making a
fair assessment regarding scene and the manner in which the
accident had taken place.
7. Though photographs were taken, the said photographs
were also not placed on record during the trial. P.W.6 in his
cross-examination admitted that there was no zebra crossing
where the body was found. P.W.6 further stated that he found
the body of the deceased on the left side of the road divider and
near front wheel of the bus. Further, the Investigation Officer
stated that the bus moved ahead after the incident and there
was no blood stains on the rear tyres.
8. The version given by P.W.1 regarding the body being
found beneath the rear tyres is contradicted by PW6-
Investigating Officer. If the bus had moved ahead after the
accident or being run over according to investigating officer-
PW6, the question of the body being found on the left side of
the road divider near front wheel of the bus does not arise.
9. There is discrepancy as to how the accident had taken
place. The photographs and the scene of offence sketch would
have made it clear as to how the accident had taken place and
whether the front tyres or the rear tyres ran over the deceased.
In the said circumstances, when the prosecution version is not
proved beyond reasonable doubt, benefit of doubt has to be
extended to the accused.
10. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting
aside the conviction recorded by the Metropolitan Sessions
Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.A.No.39/2009, dt.20-11-2009, and
the revision petitioner/accused is acquitted. Since the revision
petitioner is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 26.07.2024
tk
