HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.418 of 2005 Date:18-04-2011 Between: Chintagunta Ramanaiah ………..Petitioner/accused. And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad ……….Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Criminal Revision Case No.418 of 2005 ORDER: The sole accused in C.C.No.221 of 1999 on the file of the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and he was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.800/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month by the said Court by its order dated 9.11.2001. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction, the accused had preferred Criminal Appeal No.233 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Sessions, Nellore Division, Nellore District. However, the said Sessions Court, after considering the material on record and after hearing both sides, was pleased to dismiss the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence as passed by the trial Court. The accused, assailing the said judgment of dismissal of the Sessions Court, has preferred this Criminal Revision Case inter alia on the following grounds: (i) that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence and other material on record in proper perspective; (ii) that both the Courts below have failed to see that the identity of the revision petitioner-accused was not properly established; (iii) that both the Courts below ought to have extended benefit of doubt to the accused as there were variations in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and none of the prosecution witnesses corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in material particulars; that both the Courts failed to notice that the injured P.W.1 had admitted in his cross- examination that he was not certain as to whether the revision petitioner-accused was the driver of the accident vehicle at the time of the accident, and that no test identification parade was conducted. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: That on 22.3.1999, at about 10.30 a.m., a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 26 T 8639-8640, loaded with sand, was driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and PW.1 from behind, while they were proceeding on bicycle on the road margin near railway goods shed, Nellore and as a result of the impact, they fell down and sustained injuries. That the left side wheel of the trailer ran over the deceased. Both the injured were admitted to Dr. Ramachandra Reddy’s People’s Poly Clinic, Nellore. The deceased succumbed to the injuries, while P.W.1 got himself admitted into Apollo Hospital, Nellore for better treatment. The accused did not help the injured in reaching the hospital and he did not report the matter to the police. P.W.7-Station House Officer, North Traffic Police Station, Nellore registered a case in Crime No.17 of 1999 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the petitioner-accused and he was arrested on 30.3.1999 and was sent for remand. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was laid into the trial Court against the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 3. On the petitioner-accused pleading not guilty to the charge, he was tried for the offences under Section 304-A and 338 IPC and Section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. In order to prove the guilty of the accused, PWs.1 to 8 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10, on behalf of the prosecution. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner-accused. 5. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offences under Section 304-A and 338 IPC and not guilty for the offence under Section 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as has already been stated in paragraph No.1 supra. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused has raised the self same grounds as he has raised in the grounds of the revision. It is further the case of the revision petitioner-accused that none of the prosecution witnesses corroborated the evidence of the injured P.W.1; that the trial Court erred in relying on the evidence of P.W.1 in general since he admitted in his cross examination that he was not certain as to whether the petitioner-accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore, it is contended that the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner-accused, though his identity was not established. It is further contended that since the accident had occurred in the year 1999, since none of the prosecution witnesses corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, since P.W.1 has also admitted in his cross-examination that he was not certain as to whether the petitioner-accused was driving the accident vehicle at the time of the accident and since the petitioner-accused was only the bread winner of his family, a lenient view may be taken and the quantum of sentence may be reduced and if necessary the quantum of fine may be enhanced. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgments of both the Courts below stating that both the Courts below having considered the entire material on record, came to a right conclusion in finding the petitioner-accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC and thereby convicted and sentenced him thereof and as such the said impugned judgments of both the Courts below do not in any way warrant interference from this Court. 8. Heard both sides and perused the evidence and other material available on record. 9. It is to be seen that PW.1 in his evidence on 30-12-2000 stated that the accused was the driver of accident vehicle, and subsequently, i.e. after 9 ½ months, he stated that he was not certain as to whether the accused was the driver of the accident vehicle. P.Ws.2 & 3 were examined as mediators to Ex.P4-inquest. However, P.W.2 had turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution, whereas P .W.3 supported the prosecution case and he has further stated that he along with P.W.2 had opined that the death appeared to have been caused due to motor vehicle accident. That one of the Municipal Councilor of Nellore was examined as P.W.4 and he stated that he had produced the accused before the police along with documents belonging to the accident vehicle. However, this witness has turned hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. Though he was stated to be cross-examined by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited from him in support of the case of the prosecution. PW.5- Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nellore, has testified that he had inspected the accident vehicle on the date of the accident i.e., on 22.3.1999 at the traffic Police Station, Nellore and he has opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects in the crime vehicle and that he had issued Ex.P6-M.V. Report. P.W.6 is the medical witness who had examined P.W.1 for the injuries and had issued Ex.P7-wound certificate, wherein four injuries are mentioned, out of which, Injury Nos. 1 to 3 are stated to be simple in nature while Injury No.4 was grievous in nature. PW.7-Investigating Officer, who investigated the case, has testified that on 30.3.1999, at about 10.10 a.m., P.W.4-Muncipal Councilor, Ward Member No.27, Nellore, produced the accused before him and as such he had arrested the petitioner-accused and sent him for remand and after completion of investigation, he had laid the charge sheet against the petitioner- accused into the Court. P.W.8 is a medical witness who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased- Lingareddy Ramakrishna Reddy and issued Ex.P.10-post mortem certificate. She opined that the deceased appears to have died due to shock and hemorrhage and due to injuries to vital organs. 10. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has proved that the revision petitioner-accused was the driver of the accident vehicle at the time of accident and that the deceased died and PW.1 suffered injuries in the accident, and therefore, the trial Court rightly found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC. However, since the accident had occurred in the year 1999 and since the revision petitioner-accused is the sole bread winner to his family, the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced and as the same would meet the ends of justice and accordingly the sentence of simple imprisonment of nine months for the offence under Section 304-A is reduced to six months while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs.800/- for the offence under Section 338 IPC. 11. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction passed against the revision petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 IPC by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court while reducing the sentence of simple imprisonment from 9 months to 6 months for the offence under Section 304-A and maintaining the sentence of fine for the offence under Section 338 IPC. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Date: 18-04-2011 Mrb/Stp HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Crl.R.C.No.418 of 2005 Date: 18-04-2011