THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1811 of 2004 Dated:- 15th July, 2010 Between: Kannuri Venkataramana …Petition AND The State of A.P. …Responde THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1811 of 2004 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 29.09.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.40 of 2003 by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment dated 19.06.2003 passed in C.C.No.202 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narsipatnam, convicting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 304 -A IPC and Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offences punishable under Section 338 IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC. The substantive sentences under Section 304-A and 338 IPC were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner will be hereinafter referred to as accused for the sake of convenience. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The accused – K.Venkataramana is resident of Mettapalem Village and he is the driver of the crime vehicle – Tipper lorry bearing registration No.AP 10 T 8217. On the night of 03.06.1999, when P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 and the wife of P.W.1 – deceased Gangayamma were sleeping in their coffee hotel, at about 11:30 P.M. in the night, the accused drove the Tipper in a rash and negligent manner and rammed into the said coffee hotel, dashed against the wall of the hotel and also ran over the legs of the deceased Gangayamma, as a result of which Gangayamma sustained severe injuries and succumbed to those injuries. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 who were sleeping in the hotel also sustained injuries. Soon after the incident, the accused got down from the Tipper and ran away. Neighbours who witnessed the accident, shifted the injured to Government Hospital, Narsipatnam, and informed the police about the accident. On such information, P.W.19 – Sub Inspector of Police visited Government Hospital, Narsipatnam and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and basing on such statement, registered a case in Crime No.75 of 1999 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337& 338 IPC and investigated into the case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence, got taken the photographs of the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead body of deceased Gangayamma in the presence of mediators, sent the dead body of deceased Gangayamma for Post-Mortem Examination and recorded the statement of witnesses. When the accused surrendered before police on 07.06.1999, P.W.19 arrested the accused and sent him for remand in judicial custody and after completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable specified supra. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 19, marked Exs.P.1 to P.20. On behalf of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced except marking Ex.D.1 – 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.2. 4. Heard the learned counsel on record. 5. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the accused was not identified by the witnesses. His next submission is that the tipper did not hit the deceased and, therefore, injuries sustained by the deceased were not caused as a direct result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgments of both the Courts below and would contend that no interference of this Court is required since the judgments of the Courts below are based on well reasoning. 7. Let us see the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 – Makireddy Mahalakshmi is the resident of Bypureddipalem village. He was running a coffee hotel by the side of the road. According to him, at about 11:00 P.M., while he was sleeping in the coffee hotel along with his wife, three children and a girl of his relation, a tipper dashed against the coffee hotel resulting in injuries to all the persons sleeping in the coffee hotel. He deposed that his wife succumbed to the injuries and he sustained fracture to his left leg and became unconscious for some time after the accident. He further deposed that other articles such as carts were damaged. According to him, the police recorded his statements under Ex.P.1. 8. P.W.19 – P.V.V.Narsimha Rao was working as Sub-Inspctor of Police, Anakapalli, at the relevant time. He deposed that on the intervening night of 03.06.1999, on receipt of information about the accident, he went to the Government Hospital, Narsipatnam and recorded the statement of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1. Basing on the same, he registered a case in Crime No.75 of 1999, visited the scene of offence and took photographs of the scene of offence. He also deposed that he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and after examining the other witnesses and securing Post-Mortem Report and report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector, filed charge-sheet against the accused. 9. P.W.2 – Maddu Satyavathi is daughter of P.W.1. She deposed that the accident took place at about 11:30 P.M. when she was sleeping along with her parents and other relatives. P.W.2 had categorically deposed that the accused had driven the Tipper at the time of accident. She further deposed that she was pregnant at the time of accident and she suffered abortion as a result of the said accident. She had categorically deposed that she saw the accused when he was escaping from the spot and that there was sufficient light. She had also categorically deposed that the accused is responsible for the death of her mother – deceased Gangayamma and sustaining of injuries by others. 10. P.W.3 – T.Veerabhadra Rao was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector at the relevant time. He deposed that the accident was not due to the mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.P.2 is his report. 11. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the injured witnesses who deposed that the Tipper dashed against the wall of the coffee hotel as a result of which, they sustained injuries. 12. P.W.6 is the Doctor who treated the injured witnesses and conducted Post-Mortem Examination of the dead body of the deceased. She opined that the death of the deceased was due to asphyxias due to chest compression, shock and hemorrhage due to injury to the left lung, through fractured ribs and multiple fracture of fumer. 13. A reading of the evidence of the remaining witnesses shows that they had not deposed against the accused and discussion of their evidence in detail is unnecessary. 14. Admittedly, the accident occurred when the Tipper went off the road and dashed against the coffee hotel of P.W.1 and the deceased. Admittedly, the wall of the coffee hotel collapsed when Tipper rammed into the hotel. This shows that the driver of the Tipper lost control over the vehicle because as a result of which the vehicle went off the road and dashed against the wall of the Coffee hotel. The impact is such that the wall of the Coffee hotel collapsed and the persons sleeping by the side of the wall sustained injuries. One of such injured persons (P.W.2) was pregnant and had suffered abortion due to the accident and the deceased sustained multiple injuries and fractures and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, it cannot be said that death of the deceased is not as a result of the vehicle hitting the wall of the Coffee hotel. 15. As far as the identity of the accused is concerned, P.W.2 had categorically deposed that she saw the accused while escaping from the spot as there were sufficient lights at that place. Thus, there cannot be any reason to disbelieve her evidence. 16. In view of the above discussion, it cannot be said that the evidence of the witnesses was not properly appreciated by both the Courts below or that there was any misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. The judgments of both the Courts below are well-reasoned and do not suffer from any infirmities so as to warrant interference by this Court and the Criminal Revision Case is liable to be dismissed. 17. However, coming to the quantum of sentence, admittedly the accident took place on the intervening night of 03rd and 04th June 1999. As seen from the records, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 29.09.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this revision and he was granted bail by this Court on 19.10.2004. Thus, the petitioner was in jail for about 03 months 20 days after the dismissal of the appeal by the lower appellate Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and reasonable to modify the sentence as follows:- 18. Confirming the conviction recorded by both the Courts below against the petitioner, the petitioner is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period already undergone by him. Fine imposed by the trial Court is also confirmed. Since it is represented that the accused had already paid the fine amount imposed by the trial Court, no specific order as regards fine amount is necessary. 19. Subject to the above modification of sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR July 15, 2010 Bvv