THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.R.C.No.1942 of 2003 24th February, 2010 Between :- Mohd. Buran .. Petitioner-accused And The State of A.P. Rep. by P.P. .. Respondent-complainant THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA Crl.R.C.No.1942 of 2003 ORDER:- Heard Sri C.Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent – State. 2. While admitting the Crl.R.C., on 26-12-2003 the petitioner was released on bail. 3. Sri C.Praveen Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner would maintain that the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be sustained especially for the reason that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 being highly discrepant, on the strength of such evidence, the petitioner ought not have convicted. Further, the learned Counsel would contend that there is no evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The learned Counsel also pointed out to the relevant portions of the findings and further commented that though several material witnesses had been declared hostile, despite the same convicting the accused and imposing the sentence of imprisonment and fine cannot be sustained. 4. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would maintain that it may be true that certain of the witnesses had been declared hostile, but apart from the clear evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 6 also is available on record. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also would maintain that P.W.6 categorically stated that on 13-10-1994 at about 3.50 p.m., he examined P.W.3 and P.W.3 was brought by the accused, the driver of the lorry bearing No.APQ 6164. P.W.6 also deposed about the certificate Ex.P.7 in respect of P.W.3. In the light of the same, the findings recorded by the Courts below cannot be found fault. 5. Heard the Counsel. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the point for consideration in the present Criminal Revision Case is as hereunder:- “Whether the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court be disturbed or to be confirmed in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. The present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the revision petitioner-accused being aggrieved of the Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.139/98 on the file of the IV Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahaboobnagar, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.65/97 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile Court), Mahabubnagar. 8. The Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town, Mahaboobnagar Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused stating that on 13-10- 1994 at 17.00 hours, one Venkataiah lodged a written complaint stating that on the same day after noon when he was present in his house, one Parameswar came to him and informed him that when his brother was coming to his house on a bicycle, one lorry bearing No. APQ 6164 came behind him with high speed in reckless manner, dashed him and ran over him. Further, the lorry driver turned back his vehicle and proceeded into the town. Immediately, he and the said Parameshwar followed the lorry. Meanwhile, the accused driver again dashed a pedestrian by name Mudavath Laliya Naik and caused bleeding injuries and took to heels by leaving the lorry near Ravindra Arts, mngs. Hence, for taking necessary action. 9. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and Ess.P.1 to P.11 were marked. 10. P.W.1 – R.Venkataiah deposed that on 13-10-1994 at 2-00 p.m., while he was at his house, his friend Parameshwar informed him that one accident had taken place at ‘Y' junction of Kosgi and Koilkonda roads. Himself and the said Parameshwar went on scooter, chased the lorry. But, the driver of the said lorry caused another accident at Ravindra Arts, Mahaboobnagar to a boy and the said lorry was stopped there and the driver ran away. He further stated that he cannot identify the accused. The lorry which caused the accident bearing No. APQ 6164. Later on the victim Chinna Shanna who is his brother was shifted to Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar, but he succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. He gave complaint to the police. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Police examined him. 11. P.W.2 deposed that about three years ago at about 9.00 or 9.30 a.m., while he was going on the road leading from Mahaboobnagar to Koilkonda and when he had reached the ‘Y' junction of Koilakonda- Kodangal, the deceased Ashanna was riding a bicycle and was going on the left side of the road. While so, a lorry came from Mahaboobnagar side and gave a dash to the bicycle of the deceased. The deceased came under the front tyre of the lorry, and the lorry passed over him. The testies of the deceased were crushed and he died immediately on the spot. Accident occurred due to the negligence and rashness of the driver of the crime vehicle. The said vehicle took diversion towards Kosgi road, without stopping. He further stated that he could not give the number of the crime vehicle because he is an illiterate and he cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle. Police examined him. 12. P.W.3 is an injured who had deposed that about three years ago, one day at 3.00 p.m. when he was coming from his village to Market in Mahaboobnagar, when he had reached the cross-roads of the market, Mahaboobnagar, a lorry came from his back and gave dash to him. The said lorry came from Hanwada side and he was going on the left side of the road and he was on the extreme edge of the left side of the road when the accident took place. Due to the accident his bicycle was damaged. He received bleeding injury on his head and small injuries on his left hand. The accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the said lorry, but he cannot identify the driver of the lorry. Soon after the accident, he fell unconscious and regained consciousness in the hospital, Mahaboobnagar. Police examined him in the hospital. 13. P.W.4 is a panch witness who was declared as hostile. P.W.5 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who deposed about Ex.P.1 and the other details. P.W.6 clearly deposed that P.W.3 injured was brought by the accused, the driver of the lorry in question. This witness also deposed about the Certificate-Ex.P.7 relating to P.W.3. P.W.7 is the Assistant Civil Surgeon who conducted autopsy. P.W.8 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.W.9 is the other panch witness who had denied the panchanama and this witness also was declared hostile. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. P.W.11 is one of the eye witnesses who was declared hostile. 14. It is no doubt true that P.Ws. 4, 9 and 11 were declared hostile and certain submissions were made relating to the identity of the accused. Both the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3,5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 as well and Exs.P.1 to P.11 recorded findings and came to the conclusion that the identity of the accused also had been established. These findings cannot be found fault especially in the light of the clear evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 apart from the other evidence. 15. This Court had carefully gone through the findings recorded by both the Courts below and on appreciation of the evidence available on record, appropriate findings had been recorded and hence this Court does not see any reason to disturb the said findings and accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed. However, in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the fact that P.W.11, the alleged eye witness, had not chosen to support the version of the prosecution, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one year imposed to a period of six months simple imprisonment. As far as the payment of fine in this regard in relation to the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. is concerned, the same is hereby set aside. Further the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months imposed for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. is modified to simple imprisonment for three months but however the payment of fine of Rs.500/- is hereby set aside. The simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. imposed by this Court to run concurrently. 16. Accordingly, the sentences of imprisonment are hereby modified and the refund of fine amounts imposed under the respective offences is hereby ordered. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed to the extent indicated above. _____________________ Justice P.S.Narayana 24th February, 2010 Smr