IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.870 OF 2003 Between: Mohammad Ahmed ..... Accused/Appellant/Petitioner AND The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent The Court made the following: ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 19.05.2003, in Crl.A.No.152 of 2001, on the file of the learned V Additional District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar, whereunder and whereby the conviction of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. as imposed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hyderabad, East and North, vide judgment, dated 27.11.2001, in C.C.No.1152 of 1996, were confirmed. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: On 28.09.1996, Brahmachary (hereinafter referred to as “deceased”) and P.W.3-Pratap Reddy were going on a scooter bearing No.AP 28C 6141 to Karmanghat and when they reached at Gayathrinagar Cross Roads, the accused drove the car bearing No.ATR 7272 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said scooter. As a result, both of them sustained injuries and they were referred to the Hospital. The deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital. P.W.3 sustained grievous injuries. On coming to know about the accident, P.W.1-R. Krishnama Chary, who is the brother of the deceased, gave a complaint in the Police Station. The police registered a case as in Crime No.518 of 1996 for the offence punishable under Sections 304A and 337 I.P.C. The Sub-Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and observed the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.6-A. Chandra Reddy and another. After inquest, the dead body of the deceased was sent to Post-Mortem examination. The doctor who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries. P.W.7-K. Madhusudhan Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector, inspected the crime vehicle in question and opined that the accident was occurred not due to mechanical defects in the vehicle. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 304A and 338 I.P.C., he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. On appeal, the said convictions and sentences were confirmed. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of the two Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner; that the evidence of P.W.4 is self-contradictory; that the death of the deceased in the accident has not been established, and therefore, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the same on the ground that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that findings are based on proper appreciation of evidence and hence, she prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be incorrect, or illegal, or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. This revisional Court cannot reappreciate the evidence as may be done in the case of Appeal. 11. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that whether the findings are correct or not is concerned, it is necessary to refer to the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 with regard to the identity of the accused. The evidence of P.W.4 is very clear that the accused was driving the car bearing No.ATR 7272 at the time of accident. Whereas, the evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 would go to show that the car driven by the driver came rashly and negligently and dashed to the scooter of the deceased and P.W.3. Therefore, some discrepancy occurred in the evidence of P.W.4 with regard to the manner of taking place of the accident. That discrepancy would not in any manner affect the identity of the accused with regard to the driving of the vehicle at the time of the accident. 12. The other contention is that the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased was not examined. But, however, Ex.P7-Post-Mortem Report was marked through the Investigating Officer. Marking of document has not been objected by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. When a document is marked without there being any objection, it can be said that the document can be read as evidence. The deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained by him in the accident. The observation report and scene of occurrence report would clearly go to show that the vehicle bearing No.ATR 7272 was involved in the accident. After consideration of evidence on record, both the Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect or improper. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 19.05.2003, in Crl.A.No.152 of 2001, on the file of the learned V Additional District and Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B.Nagar. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) Date: 1st December, 2009. KL