THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.284 OF 2003. DATED:19-11-2009. Between: Akula Papireddy …Petitioner-accused and 1.State of A.P. rep. By Public Prosecutor. …Respondent-complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.284 OF 2003. ORDER: This Criminal Revision case by the petitioner-sole accused under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 10-02-2003, in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, in confirming the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, recorded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, vide judgment, dated 15-09-2000, in C.C.No.230 of 1996. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05-04-1996 at about 6.00A.M. while Ande Seshaiah (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was crossing the GNT road to attend calls of nature, the accused being the driver of lorry AEE 6269 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased on eastern side of the road, as a result, the deceased fell down under the wheels and died instantaneously. P.W.7 on phone intimation from P.W.1, registered a case, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and later sent the dead body to post-mortem examination. P.W.5 who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and issued Ex.P3 post-mortem certificate P.W.6-Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle opined that the accident was caused not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. Thereafter, P.W.7 arrested the accused and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. The trial Court accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses found the accused guilty and accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced as above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence was confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle, that it is a case of sudden crossing and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 7. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with, that after elaborate consideration of evidence on record, both the courts below found the accused guilty and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of both the courts below are legal, proper and correct? 9. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are illegal or improper or incorrect, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 10. P.Ws. 1,2 and 5 did not identify the petitioner as the driver of the lorry, but the trial Court relied upon the examination of the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., wherein it is admitted by the accused that he was the driver of the lorry. Admittedly, the deceased was crossing the road at the time of the accident. The death of the deceased is not in dispute and taking place of accident is also not in dispute. In view of the admission made by the accused that he was the driver of the crime vehicle AEE 6269 at the time of the accident, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. But, however, in a case of sudden crossing, it is not possible for the driver to save the accident though he may be slow in driving the vehicle. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision reported in MAHADEO HARI LOKRE V THE STAE OF MAHARASHTRA [1], wherein it was held thus: “If a person suddenly crosses the road the bus driver, however, slowly he may be driving, may not be in a position to save the accident. Therefore, it will not be possible to hold that the bus driver was negligent.” P.W.1 admitted in his evidence that the deceased was crossing the road at the time of the accident. The accident occurred on the National Highway. Therefore, there was a negligence on the part of the deceased to cross the road. He has to see on both sides of road before crossing the road to ensure that no vehicle was coming on either direction. Therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 10-02-2003, in Criminal Appeal No.113 of 2000, on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore. The petitioner-accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same. Bail bonds of the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner- accused shall be returned to him. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:19-11-2009. Hsd [1] AIR 1972 SC 221