HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.709 OF 2004 Date: 15-06-2011 Between: Gadde Shivaiah. - - - Petitioner/ Accused. Versus The State of A.P. Rep. By 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.709 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner- Accused against judgment, dated 08-04-2004, rendered in Criminal Appeal No.476 of 2000 preferred against Judgement rendered in C.C. No.353 of 1997 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur. 2. The Petitioner-Accused was prosecuted in C.C.No.353 of 1997 for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. After due trial, learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur, convicted the petitioner for the said offence under Section 248 (2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of One year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six months, vide judgment, dated 11-09-2000 by reason of which the appeal was preferred which was dismissed confirming the findings of the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that none of the witnesses examined to spoke about the identity of the accused and the trip sheet marked as Ex.P-17 through the Investigating Officer was not proved by examining either the owner or driver of the said vehicle and in fact, the owner of the vehicle was examined as PW.7 but he was not referred the trip sheet and hence the identity of the accused is not established and the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence property and arrived at incorrect conclusions and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether sufficient evidence was placed with regards to the identity of the accused i.e., the driver of the vehicle and the Courts below properly appreciated the matter and the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are tenable or not. 6. There is no dispute about the other findings given by the Courts below. 7. Point: As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, none of the main witnesses examined spoke about the identity of the accused. Therefore, only the trip sheet marked as Ex.A-17 is available with regard to the identity of the accused. It in fact provides that he was the driver of the vehicle. In order to prove the contents of the documents either the driver or the owner of the vehicle should have been examined. Surprisingly, even though the owner of the vehicle was examined, he was not referred to the contents of Ex.P-17 for the purpose of proving the identity of the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, ultimately the trip sheet cannot be taken into consideration with regards to the identity of the accused as the driver of the vehicle. 8. Eventually, there is no material to come to the conclusion that the accused by his rash and negligent act committed the accident and accordingly he is liable for the punishment. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. In the result, the criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court and confirmed by the lower Appellate Court are hereby set aside and the accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J 15th June, 2011. Dsh. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.709 of 2004 (Allowed) 15th June, 2011 Dsh