THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 34 of 2009 ORDER: The Revision Case is filed by the accused against the conviction in C.C.No.466 of 2004 on the file of the I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narasaraopet, who was convicted for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 of IPC and they shall run concurrently, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2007 on the file of the X Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Narasaraopet, but reduced the period of imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC from one year to six months. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.09.2004, the accused being the driver of the jeep bearing No.ADF 4320 engaged by P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 to go to Krishna Puskaram near Laxmipuram during midnight, driven the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed tractor, as a result of which, the inmates received injuries and one Poluri Somamma, who received injuries, died. On a complaint given by P.W.1, the police have registered a case in Cr.No.161 of 2004 and investigated and a charge sheet has been filed against the accused. The accused pleaded innocence and on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P- 14. After the evidence of prosecution is over, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) and he maintained his innocence. The learned Magistrate after accepting the evidence of the injured and the nature of the incident, convicted the revision petitioner, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is legal and sustainable? POINT: So far as the factum of the incident and the deceased having travelled in the jeep along with P.Ws.1 to 4 and their receiving injuries is concerned, there is no dispute about the same. The cause of death and also the nature of injuries are proved by the medical evidence and also the evidence of the eye witnesses. The contention before the trial Court was that the jeep was driven with a minimum speed and it took nearly four hours to reach the scene by traveling the distance of 40 kilometres as it was rainy season and also there was a puncture to the tyre on left disk and it was damaged and, therefore, the incident was not an act of rashness or negligence on the part of the revision petitioner herein. But the material evidence of the eye witnesses on record clearly go to show that the accused drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a stationed tractor, as a result of which, they received injuries and the incident has happened. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that it was a rainy day and the fact that the tyre was punctured and it has taken long time for traveling a distance of 40 kilometres, all circumstances are in favour of the accused for excluding his criminal liability in rashness and negligence and the lower Court should have acquitted the accused. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eye witnesses to the incident and the fact remains that the jeep has dashed against a stationed tractor, which clearly goes to show that the duty of care, which is expected to be taken by the driver of the vehicle, is lacking and consequently the jeep has dashed against the stationed tractor. The mere fact that the tyre has punctured and the left disk was damaged as noticed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector after the incident, does not mean that it is the case of incident. The possibility of the puncture to the tyre and the disk being damaged can also happen after the incident and consequently the ground pleaded for benefit of doubt to the revision petitioner also is not available. Evidently, the lower Court considered the rashness and negligence as it is not the speed that has to be taken into consideration. Mere fact that long time has been taken for covering the distance about 40 kilometres clearly goes to show that the driving conditions are not favourable to the accused, but still he has driven the vehicle in spite of raining and dashed against a stationed vehicle. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, apart from the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 and the circumstances appearing on the record, it is quite clear that the accused-revision petitioner lacked duty of care and the incident has happened due to his rashness and negligence. The lower appellate Court has shown sufficient mercy on the revision petitioner by reducing the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months and there is no further mercy to be shown for reducing the sentence of imprisonment. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision case. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and modified sentence imposed by the lower appellate Court. The lower Court is directed to take steps for apprehension of the accused person to serve the remaining sentence. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 11-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 34 of 2009 DATE: 11-11-2011 MR