IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Crl.R.C. No.121 of 2005 Between: Kaya Lakshmana Rao, S/o.Yerrayya. … Petitioner And The State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyd. … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Crl.R.C. No.121 of 2005 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed by the accused against the judgment dated 09.11.2004 passed in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2001 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Srikakulam, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali, trial Court, in C.C. No.116 of 1998 vide its judgment dated 21.03.2001 for the offences under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC. The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that one K.Bhaskara Rao and some others said to have engaged a vehicle bearing No.A.P.31/N-1320 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’) to go to Narasannapeta to attend a marriage function. One Kaya Lakshmana Rao, accused, was the driver and one B.Veeraswamy, deceased, was a cleaner, of the said offending vehicle. As the offending vehicle was overburdened with too many passengers, the cleaner was made to sit by the side of the accused, who was driving the offending vehicle. While accused driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, tried to overtake a vehicle and having found that another vehicle was coming in the opposite direction, to avoid collision, suddenly applied brakes and diverted the vehicle, as a result, the cleaner, who sat by the side of the accused driver, lost his balance, fell down from the offending vehicle, sustained injuries and died. Thus, death of the cleaner, deceased, was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, accused was charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC and the same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Lotabommali, as C.C. No.116 of 1998. For the charge framed against the accused for the offences under Section 304-A and 279 IPC, he pleaded not guilty. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution. To substantiate their case, prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. On behalf of the accused, no evidence was adduced. Based on the above rival pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court for determination. 1) Whether the prosecution established the scene of offence? 2) Whether the prosecution established the rash and negligent driving against the accused? 3) Whether the accused caused death of the deceased? 4) To what result? After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 21.03.2001, found that accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as a result, cleaner, died and therefore, accused was found guilty of the offence under Sections 304-A and 279 IPC and he was convicted for the same and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months under each count and also imposed a fine of Rs.200/-, and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment, for a period of 15 days. Assailing the same, accused preferred appeal in Criminal Appeal No.59 of 2001 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Srikakulam, and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, accused preferred this criminal revision case. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant contends that prosecution did not establish the specific scene of offence as to at which place accident was occurred and P.W.1 and P.W.5 evidence disclose that when they reached petrol bunk, the accident happened, whereas the evidence of P.W.9 and other witnesses disclose that scene of offence is Kistapuram junction. He further contended that except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to support the case of the prosecution including P.W.5, who is none other than brother of P.W.1. Eventually, he contended that both the Courts below have committed an error in coming to the conclusion that accused is guilty of the said offences. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the judgment of the Courts below, contended that there are no grounds to entertain this revision and the same is liable to be dismissed. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds to entertain this revision? From a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court and the lower appellate Court, it is not in dispute that P.W.1 engaged the offending vehicle to attend a marriage. When the offending vehicle is on the way to reach the destination, accident occurred and the deceased died. The main reason for causing the accident is that accused drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent and at a high speed and while trying to overtake a vehicle, took sudden diversion by applying brakes of the offending vehicle, without following the rules of road. Further, the reason for the death of the deceased is that he was allowed to sit by the side of the accused/driver where the driver alone has to sit in that seat. Under the above situation, it is not difficult to imagine that if any driver while trying to overtake a vehicle found any vehicle coming in the opposite direction, it is very natural to apply brakes and in this case also accused might have applied sudden brake, as a result, deceased, who sat by the side of the accused/driver, lost his balance and fell down and succumbed to injuries. At a stretch of imagination, it can be said that though not to cause any untoward incident, but with an intention to avoid the major accident, accused might have applied sudden brake, but unfortunately, deceased fell from the offending vehicle and died. Thus, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have rightly found the accused guilt of the offences alleged against him. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, I am of the opinion that a lenient view can be taken and accordingly sentence imposed against accused can be reduced to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence imposed against accused by the Courts below is reduced to that of the period he has already undergone. With the above modification in sentence, this revision is partly allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 02.09.2010. LSK