THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.214 OF 2009 ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.620 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. The accused was convicted by the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, for the offences under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 337 IPC. The said sentence was confirmed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur in the appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.09.2006 at about 7-00 A.M., when the deceased Satyanarayana along with PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 was going in the auto driven by PW.2, near C.P.I. Statue center, the accused being the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 2170, driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto driven by PW.2, as a result of which, the deceased Satyanarayana died and PWs.1 to 4 received injuries. On a complaint given by PW.1, police have registered a case and investigated into and sent the injured persons for treatment. The inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and sent for Post Mortem Examination. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 304-A and 337 IPC. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code and no defence evidence is adduced. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilt of offences and accordingly convicted him. The said conviction was confirmed in appeal. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence the present revision is filed. 6. The points for consideration are: 1) Whether the accused is the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 7 TT 2170? 2) Whether the accused is guilt of rashness and negligence causing death of the deceased and injuries to PWs.1 to 4? 7. POINTS: In order to prove the prosecution case, PW.1, who is the complainant, travelling in the auto and received injuries, was examined apart from it PW.2, who is the driver of the auto, in which the deceased was travelled was examined. PWs.3 and 4, injured, were also examined. Their evidence goes to show that on the date of incident at the early hours when they were going in the auto driven by PW.2, another auto came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the auto driven by PW.2 has turned turtle and they received injuries and the deceased also received injuries and died. Except PW.1, the other witnesses have not identified the accused as the driver of the auto though they have spoken about the manner in which the incident has been caused. The cause of death of the deceased being due to the multiple injuries received in the motor accident has been proved by the evidence of PW.8, the doctor, who conducted post mortem examination and issued the certificate Ex.P.6. So also the doctor (PW.11), who treated PWs.1 to 4 was also examined and injuries were proved by his evidence and also the Wound Certificates Exs.P.9 to P.11 issued by him. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the evidence of PW.1, which has been relied on by both the Courts is not credible and there is no proof of rashness or negligence and the finding of the learned Magistrate itself shows that there is no rashness and consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner is not valid. He further contended that when there is no proof of identity of the accused and proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused, the conviction for offence under Section 304-A IPC is not proper. He relied on the following decisions: 1) State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh[1] 2) Mukhtiar Singh Vs. State of A.P.[2] 3) Markapudi Krishna Rao Vs. State of A.P.[3] 4) Renu Kunta Mallaiah Vs. State of A.P.[4] 9. It is not in dispute that except the evidence of PW.1, there is no other evidence identifying the accused as a person, who drove the auto that has caused the incident. Apart from it, it is only the evidence of the Investigating Officer about the arrest of the accused during the course of investigation. PW.1 was examined on 17.07.2007 and he was cross-examined at length. Initially when PW.1 was examined, he has specifically stated that the accused was the person, who caused the incident and was the driver of the auto, which came in the opposite direction. But, after completion of the prosecution evidence and at the time of arguments, PW.1 was recalled in Crl.M.P.No.992 of 2008 on 05.03.2008 and when he was examined on 27.05.2008 he has stated that he has not seen the accused on the date of incident and saw the accused only in the Court on the date of his giving evidence and that his earlier statement was at the instance of the police. This particular evidence of PW.1 is sought to be relied on by the revision petitioner for claiming an acquittal. 10. Evidently, the earlier statement of PW.1 before the Court clearly goes to show that the accused, after the incident, was at the scene of incident and the name of the accused was also given. It cannot be forgotten that the incident has happened at 7.30 A.M., i.e., in the morning and when an incident has taken place and the auto colluded with another auto, naturally the driver of the auto which caused the incident will not be allowed to escape from the scene by the passengers in any one of the auto. Apart from it, immediately after the auto has turned turtle one cannot expect an apprehension on the part of the revision petitioner that some person will die due to the injuries and try to escape from the scene of incident. Therefore, the possibility of the revision petitioner being at the scene of incident for a longer time cannot be ruled out. When a person in day light was present at the scene of incident for a longer time, there is no improbability in identifying the person even after a long time in the Court. There is also absolutely no material to show that anybody is interested in implicating the accused if he is not really the driver of the auto. Therefore, it is quite clear that the later statement of PW.1 after he was recalled is only an accommodative statement procured by the accused to get benefit of an acquittal. Therefore, the lower Court has rightly rejected the contention of the revision petitioner. 11. So far as the rashness and negligence is concerned, the evidence available on record clearly goes to show that the vehicle was driven with speed and the fact that he could not control the vehicle and dashed against the opposite vehicle clearly goes to show his rashness and negligence and in fact, the finding of the lower Court is that the petitioner was reckless in driving the vehicle, thereby importing the necessary requirement of rashness on his part. 12. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, there are no grounds to hold that the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is not legal and accordingly, there are no merits in the revision. However, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to nine months while maintaining the fine. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed in part. The sentence of one year is reduced to nine months for the offence under Sectio 304-A IPC while maintaining the fine. The lower Court is directed to give Non-Bailable Warrant for apprehension of the accused. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:29-11-2011 INL [1] (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1118 [2] 2006(1) ALT (Crl.) 418 (A.P.) [3] 2006(1) ALT (Crl.) 73 (A.P.) [4] 2008 AIR SCW 7037 = AIR 2009 SC 133