IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1883 OF 2003 Between: Kandipalli Trinadh ..... Petitioner/Accused AND The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent/Complainant The Court made the following: 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 04.11.2003, in Crl.A.No.14 of 2003, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the conviction and sentence imposed against the petitioner/accused in judgment, dated 10.02.2003, in C.C.No.299 of 2001, on the file of the learned II Metroppolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, were confirmed. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: On 11.02.2001, P.W.1-Mamidi Srinivasarao, P.W.3- Thogurothu Satish Kumar and the deceased-Lanka Trinadh boarded an auto bearing No.AP 31V 1855 which was being driven by the accused-Kandipalli Trinadh to go to Rushikonda. When the auto was proceeding towards Geetham College on beach road, the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to one electrical cement pole near Geetham College Laboratory compound wall, due to which the pole was broken into pieces and the auto turned turtle. As a result, the deceased died instantaneously and P.Ws.1 and 3 sustained injuries. The accused also sustained bleeding injuries. On the complaint lodged by P.W.1, the police registered a case in Crime No.78 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”). During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police visited and observed the scene of occurrence. He got the scene of occurrence photographed, which are marked as Exs.P3 to P7 through P.W.5- Eagala Srinivasarao, the photographer, and the police also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. The police also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 12.02.2001 before the Mediators and prepared an Inquest Report, which is marked as Ex.P2. After inquest, the dead body was referred to Post-Mortem examination. P.W.7-Dr.R.Naga Sankara Reddy conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9-Post-Mortem Certificate opining that the deceased died due to the injuries received in the accident. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 337 I.P.C., he 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 P9. 5. 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 evidence either oral or documentary was adduced. 6. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 and found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months, while acquitting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. On Appeal, the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the charge under Section 304A I.P.C. and whether the judgments of the two Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the trial Court disbelieved the evidence in respect of P.Ws.1 and 3 sustaining injuries; and therefore, their presence is doubtful; that this aspect of the case has not been taken note of by the two Courts below; that rashness or negligence on the part of the accused who drove the auto bearing No.AP 31V 1855 has not been proved by the prosecution, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court as confirmed in the Criminal Appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 is very clear that the driver was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the accident, and that concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with as none of the finding is shown to be incorrect or illegal. 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, illegal, or improper, normally this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the trial Court or to reappreciate the evidence sitting as in an Appeal. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution has to establish that there was a rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 31V 1855 in causing the accident. Rashness does not consist in only 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. 12. The fact that P.Ws.1 and 3 along with the deceased were travelling in the auto bearing No.AP 31V 1855 on 11.02.2001 which was driven by the accused and when the auto was proceeding towards Geetham College on beach road, the accused drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner, are not seriously in dispute. The presence of P.W.1 can be said to be established in view of the fact that he set criminal law into motion by lodging Ex.P1- complaint. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 would go to show that the driver of the auto dashed against one electrical cement pole near Geetham College Laboratory compound wall, on beach road, Visakhapatnam. The Mediator’s Report and Exs.P3 to P7-photographs would disclose that the impact was so severe that the electrical cement pole was broken into pieces and the auto turned turtle, that means the petitioner was driving the vehicle in an uncontrollable speed. The care and caution that may be taken while driving the vehicle in the circumstances of the case have not been taken by the accused. As a result, he lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the electrical cement pole resulting in the death of the deceased. The deceased also sustained head injury and the brain tissue from the cranial cavity has come out. The deceased also sustained lacerations. P.Ws.1 and 3 had also sustained injuries including the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, it can be said that the accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving of the driver. 13. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. Ex.P9-Post-Mortem Certificate coupled with the evidence of P.W.7-doctor would clearly go to show that the deceased died due to the head injury. Exs.P3 to P7-photographs of the scene of occurrence disclose the manner of taking place of the accident. Upon considering the evidence on record, the trial Court and the Appellate Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 04.11.2003, in Crl.A.No.14 of 2003, on the file of the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 10th November, 2009 KL