IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1433 OF 2001 Between: T. Narsimhulu Ravi ..... Accused/Appellant/Petitioner AND 1. State of A.P., Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Pratipadu Police Station. 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. through Public Prosecutor High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Complainants/Respondents/Respondents The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397, 399 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment, dated 04.12.2001, in Crl.A.No.425 of 2000, on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, whereunder and whereby, the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused in judgment, dated 07.08.2000, in C.C.No.94 of 1999, on the file of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, were confirmed. 2. None appeared for the accused on 20.07.2009. Therefore, the matter is posted under the caption “for Judgment”. Today also, none appears for the accused. 3. Brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present criminal revision case may be stated as follows: On 16.07.1999 at about 5.30 p.m., at Eedulapalem bus stop, the accused drove the lorry bearing No.AP 03T 1611 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the pedestrian boy while he was walking on the roadside. As a result, the boy died on the spot. P.Ws.1 and 5 witnessed the accident. They informed the same to P.Ws.2 and 3. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, P.W.7-Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.47 of 1999 for the offence under Section 304A IPC. P.W.7 held inquest on the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The police also seized the records relating to the lorry and the vehicle was subjected to inspection by the Motor Vehicles Inspector. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 4. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.D1. 7. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC and sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. On appeal, it was confirmed. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed. 8. As seen from the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the ingredients of the offence under Section 304A IPC have not been established, and that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 is contradictory, and prayed to take a lenient view with regard to sentence. 9. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments under challenge are correct, legal and proper? 10. The accident as such is not in dispute. While the deceased boy was walking by the roadside, a lorry bearing No.AP 03T 1611 driven by the accused in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the boy. As a result, the boy died on the spot. During the course of investigation, P.W.7 held inquest in the presence of P.W.6 and others under Ex.P3-inquest report wherein it was stated that the deceased sustained multiple injuries in the accident. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries. The cause of death of deceased as spoken to by P.W.8 remained unchallenged. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 would go to show that on the date of accident, they went to Eedulapalem and came to Eedulapalem bus stand. The deceased also was present along with them. The road is National Highway. The deceased was attending to natural calls by the side of the road and the lorry came with high speed without blowing horn and dashed the deceased. As a result, he died on the spot. P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1- complaint in the Police Station. The accident took place on the roadside margin due to the negligence of the accused. 12. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. They are not the eye witnesses to the accident. On coming to know about the death of their son, they came to the spot. 13. P.W.5 is the eye witness to the accident. He has categorically stated that while he was present in the Eedulapalem bus stand, the deceased was attending to the deceased was attending to natural calls by the side of the road and by that time, the lorry came with high speed without blowing horn and dashed the deceased, as a result he died on the spot. 14. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 would go to show that the deceased was attending to natural calls by the side of the road. In such situation, the driver of the lorry has to take all necessary precautions. Rashness does not consist of high speed but consists of not taking proper care and caution in driving the vehicle and not following the rules of road safety. On the other hand, negligence is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and caution that may be required to be taken in the circumstance of the case. No explanation was forthcoming as to why the petitioner has to swerve the vehicle to the wrong side of the road. Swerving the vehicle to the wrong side by itself is a rash or negligent act. 15. Considering the evidence on record, both the trial Court as well as the appellate Court found that the appellant drove the lorry in rash or negligent manner. That finding cannot be shown to be incorrect. The judgment under challenge needs no interference. Hence, the criminal revision case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the Judgment, dated 04.12.2001, in Crl.A.No.425 of 2000, on the file of the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 19th August, 2009 KL