IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.46 of 2005 DATE:12.03.2010 Between: Shaik Abdul Rahim, …… Petitioner/Appellant/Accused. And: State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor …..Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.46 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner who is driver of lorry bearing No.AP 02 U 1835 was convicted by the Courts below for offence under Section 304-A I.P.C and was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.300/-. It is alleged that the petitioner drove his lorry on Renigunta-Koduru road near Karakambadi village in rash and negligent manner and at high speed and dashed opposite tractor bearing No.AP 21 V 0306 being driven by P.W-2 and it resulted in one Babu who was sitting on the tractor falling down and sustaining injuries and succumbing to the said injuries on the way to hospital. 2) P.Ws-1 and 2 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W-1 is owner and P.W-2 is driver of the tractor. As per evidence of P.W-2, the road would allow only one vehicle to pass at a time because of its small width. It is a case of head-on collision. P.Ws 1 and 2 spoke to manner of the incident. P.W-1 stated that the accused drove his lorry at high speed and hit their tractor when they were negotiating up-gradient. P.W-1 also sustained injuries in that accident. P.W-2 also stated that lorry of the accused came in opposite direction with high speed and hit the tractor, due to which he fell on ground. He says the tractor became two pieces because of the accident. 3) No doubt, as laid down in State of Karnataka Vs. Satish[1] mere high speed does not bespeak of either negligence or rashness by itself. It is also true that criminal Court cannot take aid of the maxim res ipsa loquitur to give a finding in favour of the prosecution. As noted by the Supreme Court in that decision, speed or high speed is a relative term. For a four lane highway divided into two parts, speed of even 100 KMPH cannot be termed as high speed. At the same time, on a road which is of the width which allows only one vehicle to pass at a time, even speed of 10 KMPH has to be taken as high speed. The term high speed has to be read having regard to all the attending facts and circumstances of the case. In the case on hand, after head on collision, the tractor was broken into pieces. The said fact coupled with evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 with regard to speed of lorry of the accused undoubtedly denotes that the lorry was being driven at high speed in very rash manner without minding the tractor coming in opposite direction in that road of very small width. As per Exs.D-1 and D-2 portions of statement given by P.Ws 1 and 2 to the investigating officer during investigation under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C, after the impact between two vehicles P.W-1 jumped from the vehicle, perhaps to save his life. 4) It is contended that as per cross-examination of P.W-1 he was sitting back side of the driver facing back of the road. He saw the lorry only after the accident. From this, it cannot be said that P.W-1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He was a witness and also a victim of the offence. He can perceive what had happened even though he was sitting on back of driver facing back side of the road. So, his evidence cannot be brushed aside. After evaluating evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 and also other documents and circumstances, both the Courts below, in my opinion, came to right conclusion in favour of the prosecution with regard to guilt of the accused/petitioner. 5) Lastly, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that sentence of imprisonment of six months is on higher side and that the petitioner had already undergone imprisonment for 15 days pending investigation and after pronouncement of judgments of the Courts below. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that imposing sentence of imprisonment of three months in stead of six months would be appropriate in a case of this nature. 6) In the result, the revision is dismissed, but altering sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J March 12, 2010 KSH [1] 1998 Supreme Court Cases(Cri) 1508