HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1449 OF 2004 Date: 19-07-2011 Between: Matcherla Surya Bhaskara Rao. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant, Accused. Versus The State of A.P. Rep. By its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1449 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the Petitioner (for short, ‘the Accused’) against judgment, dated 18-08-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2002 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. 2. The Accused was prosecuted in Calender Case No.22 of 2000 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru and was convicted under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 304-A of I.P.C. itself and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for three months vide judgment, dated 18-11-2002, whereas against the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed the Criminal Appeal No.293 of 2002 on the file of learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, which was dismissed confirming the conviction but modifying and reducing the sentence of imprisonment to six months vide judgment, dated 18-08-2004 and challenging the same, the accused has preferred this Revision. 3. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present Revision may be stated as follows : On 19-12-1999 at about 10-30 p.m. driver of lorry bearing registration No.TN/57/1711 stopped his lorry on the extreme western side road margin opposite to M.R.K. Petrol Bunk at Jonnada and by the side of Kovvuri Srinivasa Reddy’s pan shop and got down from the lorry for having tea. Meanwhile, at about 11- 00 p.m. the accused driver of van bearing No.ADN 5838 while proceeding from Ravulapalem to Vemagiri drove it in a rash land negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry on its rear side, due to which, the cleaner of the van Arasavilli Nageswara Rao died on the spot and the accused also received injuries. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Alamuru Police took up and completed the investigation of the case and later filed relevant Charge sheet holding that only because of rash and negligent driving of the van the accident took place. 4. The version of the defence is that he does not commit the offence. The accused was tried for the said offence accordingly. To substantiate the prosecution case examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and on behalf of the accused, none were examined but got marked Exs.D-1 and D-2 on his behalf. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that there is no specific evidence from PWs. 1 to 3 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the van in question and in fact, there was clear admission from PW.3 that the lorry was not stationed at the time of the accident and on the other hand, it was moving which clearly disproves the prosecution version and accordingly the Revision is liable to be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the prosecution case mostly rests upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 eye witnesses of the incident and they deposed that one lorry bearing registration No.TN/57/1711 was stationed on the extreme left side of the road or the road margin as the driver and cleaner of the lorry went to take tea and at about 11-00 p.m. the van bearing registration No.ADN 5838 came and dashed against the lorry on its rear side and the evidence of PW.6 who was Motor Vehicle Inspector reveals that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the van and significantly the accused escaped from the accident with simple injuries and none of the findings of the Courts below are irrational or incorrect and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 7. Now, it is to be mainly considered as to : 1) Whether the prosecution placed good evidence with regards to the alleged offence? 2) Whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions? and 3) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are tenable or not? 8. It is very clear from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the van went and hit the stationed lorry. There is no specific evidence from them that the van was driven rashly and negligent by its driver. Further, it is not the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the lorry was moving when the alleged incident took place. In view of the facts and circumstances enumerated, it is clear that the van was driven in such way that it hit the stationed lorry. Even though there is no specific evidence that there was rash and negligent driving of the van, the same can be inferred basing upon the circumstances of the case. 9. There is no evidence to the effect that for different reason the offence took place when the van went and hit the stationed lorry, whereas it is sufficient to imply that the same happened because of rash and negligent driving of the crime van only. The driver of the vehicle had to take all necessary precautions while driving it but the circumstances of the case prove that he failed to do so. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Courts below and accordingly the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused is to be upheld. 11. However, with regards to the question of sentence it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the accused was in jail for 10 days and has been suffering since long time by attending various Courts and losing valuable part of his life and spending lot of amount and hence the matter may be viewed leniently showing some mercy on the accused. 12. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction recorded against the Accused by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. as confirmed by the appellate Court is further confirmed but the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment of one (1) month, keeping the fine clause intact. The period of detention, if any, undergone by the accused shall be given as set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 19h July, 2011. Dsh THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 186 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1449 OF 2004 July, 19, 2011 DSH