Telangana High Court
Shaik Areef Ahmed, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 5 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.650 OF 2010
Between:
Shaik Areef Ahmed, S/o Shaik Immam, Aged 25 Years, Muslim, R/o
H.No.3-4-87, Ramagundam, Karimnagar.
...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
AND
The State, through SHO PS LMD Colony, Karimnagar, Karimnagar
District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad.
...Respondent
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:05.06.2024
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
__________________
K. SURENDER, J
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.650 OF 2010
%Dated 05.06.2024
# Shaik Areef Ahmed, S/o Shaik Immam, Aged 25 Years, Muslim,
R/o H.No.3-4-87, Ramagundam, Karimnagar
...Petitioner/Appellant/Accused
AND
$ The State, through SHO PS LMD Colony, Karimnagar,
Karimnagar District, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of
A.P., Hyderabad.
...Respondent
! Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. K. Venu Madhav
^ Counsel for Respondent: Assistant Public Prosecutor
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.650 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the judgment
dated 26.03.2010 passed in Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2009 on the
file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at
Karimnagar (for short the 'appellate Court') confirming the judgment
dated 22.06.2009 passed in C.C.No.386 of 2007 on the file of the
learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Karimnagar (for
short 'the trial Court').
2. The revision petitioner was convicted for the offence under
Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year.
3. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 15.06.2006 revision
petitioner/accused was driving lorry bearing No.AP-15-W-9567 in a
rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter bearing No.AP-16-
8050 on which the deceased was driving, from the backside.
According to the case of the prosecution, the rear tyre of the lorry ran
over the scooter and he was dragged to a distance of nearly 15
meters and the deceased died instantaneously. PW-1, who is the
wife of the deceased, filed complaint with the police which is Ex.P-1.
On the basis of the complaint, investigation was taken up. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. The trial Court
examined PWs-1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P13.
4. Having considered the evidence of witnesses, the trial Court
found that the accused was guilty of the offence and accordingly,
convicted him and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one (01) year. On appeal, the appellate Court, while
concurring with the finding of the trial Court, dismissed the appeal.
5. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner is that there are two versions in the complaint. Firstly,
according to PW-2 and PW-3 who are alleged eye-witnesses to the
accident have stated that they caught hold the accused who was
driving the lorry and he was handed over to the police on the very
same day. However, PW-10 has stated that the lorry driver himself
surrendered on 19.6.2006 which is nearly four days thereafter. In
view of the said contradictory versions, the very case of the
prosecution cannot be believed.
6. On the otherhand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that
since PWs.2 and 3, who are eye witnesses have stated that the
accused had driven the lorry at the time of the accident. Therefore,
the said discrepancy had no significance. Both the learned trial
Court as well as learned appellate Court found that PW-2 and PW-3
have apprehended and identified the accused as the person who
drove the crime vehicle-lorry. He submitted that for the above
reasons, there needs no interference in the concurrent findings of the
Court below.
7. Having gone through the record, it is the specific case of PW-2
and PW-3 that they caught hold the driver and handed over to the
police on the very same day i.e., on 15.06.2006. If such is the case,
the aspect of driver surrendering before the police officer on
19.06.2006 which is four days thereafter does not arise. Ex.P-1
complaint was filed by PW-1 who is the wife of the deceased. The
name of the accused is not mentioned in the complaint. If the
version of PW-2 and PW-3 is to be believed that they caught hold of
the driver/accused and handed over him to the police, the
probabilities are that the complaint ought to have been filed by PW-2
and PW-3 and accused arrested on the same day. Since the entire
version of catching hold of the driver on the very same day by PW-2
and PW-3 eye witnesses, runs contrary to the case of the
prosecution, version of PW-10 investigating officer that the accused
was arrested after he surrendered four days after the accident, it
raises any amount of doubt regarding the prosecution case. In view
of the said discrepancy, benefit of doubt is extended to the revision
petitioner and the conviction imposed by the learned trial Judge,
confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby set-aside.
8. Accordingly, the Criminal revision is allowed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 05.06.2024
vrks
