THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1236 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), is directed against the Judgment, dated 05.07.2004, in Crl.A.No.139 of 2004, on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum – VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case may be stated as follows: On 24.03.2002 at about 08:00 PM, the injured PW.1 went to Alpha hotel, which is situated near Secunderabad Railway Station, to purchase bread. While he was crossing the road at Subash Statue Park near railway station, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 985 being driven by the petitioner came in a high speed and dashed to PW.1, as a result, the front and rear wheels of the bus ran over on both the legs of PW.1. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Police after intimation from the hospital, went to the hospital, recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered a case. Thereafter, PW.6 – Sub - Inspector of police observed the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C., he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were got marked. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderanad, upon accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, vide judgment, dated 28.04.2004, in C.C.No.979 of 2002. On appeal, the appellate Court while confirming the conviction against the accused, reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for five months to rigorous imprisonment for two months, while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the accused. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that injury No.1, which is grevious in nature sustained by PW.1 is an old injury; that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW.1, which would go to show that his evidence is unbelievable; that there is no rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there is no illegal or incorrect finding given by both the Courts below; that the evidence of PW.1 is very clear that the bus dashed him, as a result, he sustained injuries; and that the findings of both the Courts below are correct and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision case. 10. The taking place of accident as such is not in dispute. PW.1 is the sole witness to the accident. He categorically stated that while he was crossing the road near Alpha Hotel, Secunderabad Railway Station Bus Stop, APSRTC bus coming from Secunderabad Railway Station bus stop driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to him, as a result the front and rear wheels of the bus passed on his legs. Immediately, he was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. While taking a turn, the driver is supposed to slow down the vehicle, because it is a busy junction and so many pedestrians will cross the road. If it is a case of sudden crossing of the road, it would not be possible for the driver to avert the accident however slow he was driving the vehicle. The earliest version would clearly go to show that while PW.1 was crossing the road, APSRTC bus came speedily and dashed to him, as a result both front and rear wheels ran over on his legs. Therefore, the earliest version which is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the accident had taken place by the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. Rashness does not consist of high speed but also consists of not keeping in mind the rules of safety and prudence. Negligence, on the other hand, is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such reasonable care and caution, which has to be taken in the circumstances of the case. The driver is supposed to slow down the vehicle in a busy junction, especially while taking a turn. At the time of taking turn, opposite person who is crossing or walking on the road may not be visible sometimes. In such case, if the driver was driving the vehicle slowly, he would have certainly averted the present accident. He must drive the vehicle in such circumstances in a controllable speed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that injury No.1 could not have been caused in the present accident in view of the fact that it is an old injury, which is amputation of left leg. Injury No.1 in Ex.P-3 as testified by PW.3 would go to show that it is a traumatic amputation of left leg up to middle 1/3rd with degloving of the skin up to the left knee. It is not the case of petitioner that PW.1 was a lame person with amputated leg. If it is case of previous amputation, there would be no degloving of the skin up to the left knee. The description of the injury as testified by PW.3 would go to show that because of the injury, the left leg might have been hanging with the skin up to the ankle of the left side because of dislocation, which might be possible as both the wheels of the bus ran over on the legs. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is an old injury, which is not caused in the present accident. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the endorsement on the reverse of Ex.P-7 was made by some body to the effect that the injured was in a drunken state and must have fell under the rear wheels of the bus. The said endorsement cannot be taken as an admissible evidence, unless the person who made that endorsement is examined by the Court and that the same was not confronted with the evidence of Sub-Inspector of Police, through whom the document is marked. Therefore, the endorsement made on the reverse of Ex.P-7 is not an evidence and it must have been made by the conductor so as to save the skin of his own driver. Therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly found the accused guilty. There are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgments. 13. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 05-07-2004, in Crl.A.No.139 of 2004, on the file of the Special Judge For The Trial OF Offences Under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum – VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner during the course of invetigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 17, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1228 OF 2004 Between: Sri B. Narayana .....PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: