THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.338 OF 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner who is accused in C.C.No.109 of 2004 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-cum-Special Mobile Court, Anantapur was convicted for the oﬀence under Section 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the oﬀence under Section.304-A IPC; and further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six(6) months and ﬁne of Rs.500/- in default S.I for 15 days months for the oﬀence under Section 337 IPC and also further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years and a ﬁne of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo S.I for a period of 20 days for the oﬀence under Section.338 IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Anantapur viz.,. Crl.A.No.20 of 2007 and appellate court while conﬁrming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused modiﬁed the sentence of imprisonment. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, the present revision is filed. The case of the prosecution is that the accused being the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP2U-4154 drove it in a rash and negligent manner on 09-09-2002 at about 4.30 P.M near Madhavi College on Anantapur to Gooti Road, as a result of which, he lost control and dashed against a milestone and the jeep turned turtle. Two persons died and PW.3 received injuries. The police have investigated and ﬁled a charge sheet for the offence under Sections.337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 13 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-13. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court below found the accused guilty and aggrieved by the judgment, he carried the matter in an appeal and the lower appellate court while conﬁrming the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused modified the period of sentence. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is legal and sustainable? POINT:- In support of the prosecution case, PWs.1 and 2 who are said to be travelling in the jeep and who also received injuries did not support the prosecution case and did not identify the driver of the vehicle and they were declared as hostile. The evidence of PW.3 is that he was cleaner of the jeep and the accused was the driver of the jeep and PWs.1 and 2 are passengers on the date of incident and while the jeep is coming near Madhavi college, the jeep turned turtle due to the hitting of a milestone, as a result of which, he and others received injuries and two persons were died. As he could not say the cause of incident about the rashness and negligence, he was declared as hostile. The prosecution examined the other witnesses about the panchanama of the scene and conducting of the post- mortem examination and PW.6 is the Investigating Oﬃcer. Though PWs.1 and 2 have not supported the prosecution case, the fact that they have received injuries which supported by the medical evidence. The fact that they travelled in a jeep is not disputed. PW.3 is the important witness, who spoke about the accused being the driver of the incident and the jeep having turned turtle, as a result of which, they received injuries. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no material to show that the jeep was driven rashly or negligently and when it was near a curve, no inference of rashness or negligence can be drawn. He relied on the decision reported in Mohammed Aynuddin Vs. State of A.P([1]). In this case, the panchanama of the scene was conducted and a sketch was drawn under Ex.P-6. It goes to show that opposite to the scene, there is a milestone 344/6 and this milestone is evidently beyond the margin of the road. It is not a blind curve and incident was happened during broad day time and any reasonable man who takes care could have easily noticed the milestone. Further more, it is the duty of the driver to drive the vehicle with such a speed with which he can control. The duty of care is more when evidently there is said to be a turning and also entering into the locality where people reside. In this case, evidently while taking turn the accused could not control the jeep. There is no reason as to why the vehicle has to deviate from the road and go to the margin and hit the stone. It clearly goes to show that the vehicle was driven with lack of care and with speed which is not controllable and added to that the vehicle did not stop and it has gone into a distance of nearly 200 feet and again went to the heap of groundnut and turned turtle on the extreme left side of the road in the ﬁelds. In these circumstances, it clearly goes to show that it is a clear case of rashness and negligence and the accused could not give any other cause for such incident. The courts below have rightly accepted the prosecution case and convicted the accused. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate court below does not call for interference and accordingly the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The lower court is directed to issue N.B.W for the apprehension of the accused. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 08-11-2011 TSNR [1] (2000) 7 SCC 72