THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.277 OF 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner who is accused in C.C.No.187 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur was convicted for the oﬀence under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a ﬁne of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for the oﬀence under Section.304-A IPC; and further sentenced to pay a ﬁne of Rs.500/- and in default to suﬀer S.I for a period of 15 days for the oﬀence under Section.337 IPC, which was conﬁrmed in an appeal viz., Crl.A.No.186 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. The case of the prosecution is that on 7-01-2007 at about 9.30 A.M when PW.1 was taking the deceased to Lalapet on his motorcycle and after crossing A.C. College near “T” Junction, the accused being the driver of the Van bearing No.AP5V-3666 came from J.K.C. College side, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and the van ran over the deceased and deceased died instantaneously. On a complaint given by PW.1, a case was registered and investigated into. After completion of investigation, the accused was charged for the oﬀence under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC and accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 9 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-11. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court below found the accused guilty and aggrieved by the judgment, he carried the matter in an appeal and the lower appellate court also conﬁrmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence the revision. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the accused is the driver of the van bearing No.AP5V-3666 and caused death of the deceased due to his rash and negligent driving? POINT:- PW.1 is the complainant and according to him, when he was going on the motor cycle along with the deceased, due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver, it hit the vehicle, as a result, the deceased who is his sister fell down and succumbed to injuries. He identiﬁed the accused as the driver of the van and gave number as AP5V-3666. In much of the cross examination about the location of the scene of oﬀence and about the identiﬁcation of the accused. It was suggested that he did not see the driver of the vehicle and it was also further pleaded that there was no rashness and negligence and the deceased fell on the footpath and in order to claim insurance, a false case was ﬁled. According to him, after the hit, the accused went away with the vehicle. The evidence of PW.2 is that on the date of the incident he was going in an auto behind the motor cycle of PW.1 and at that time the lorry came and hit the motor cycle and he gave the number of the vehicle as AP5V-3666. He stated that he has not observed the driver of the said crime vehicle, but, identiﬁed the accused as the person that drove the crime vehicle. In cross-examination, he stated that PW.1 is his locality person. He denied the suggestion that he did not see the incident. PW.3 is said to be an eye witness and did not support the prosecution case. The evidence of PW.4 is about his presence at the scene of oﬀence at about 10.00 A.M when the police have conducted the panchanama and also noticed the van bearing No.AP5V- 3666. Ex.P-3 is the panchanama and inquest report is marked as Ex.P-4. The evidence of PW.5 is about taking photos of the scene of oﬀence and PW.6 is examined to prove the injuries on PW.1. PW.7 was examined to prove the cause of death of the deceased. The evidence of PW.8 is the inspection of the vehicle and issuing the certiﬁcate Ex.P-9 stating that the incident was not due to any mechanical defect. The evidence of PW.9 who is the Investigating Oﬃcer about the investigation done by him and also conducting panchanama of the scene and also stating that at about 3.30 P.M he arrested the accused. He was produced by the public. Only a suggestion was made that the accused is falsely implicated by doing table investigation. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no proof that the accused was the driver of the oﬀending vehicle and the evidence of PWS.1 and 2 is inconsistent and it is not possible for them to have noticed the accused and consequently the conviction and sentence is bad. So far as the rashness and negligence is concerned, it is quite clear that the vehicle went behind the motor cycle and dashed. Evidently, it is in the morning time and the scene of oﬀence is a busy locality and the fact that the vehicle could not be controlled and dashed from behind is clearly a factor which supports the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 about the cause of incident. The fact that the vehicle was involved in the incident is proved by its presence at the scene when in the panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW.4. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that the vehicle after hit has gone away cannot be taken as literally to the eﬀect that it was not at all stopped after the hit. It might not have been stopped, but, at a distance it might have been stopped and the public present there would not have allowed it to go away. In fact, the panchanama of the scene and inquest was said to have been conducted at about 10.00 A.M and the vehicle was found there at that time. Therefore, it clearly goes to show that the vehicle was stopped after going to some distance. So far as the identity of the accused is concerned, it is true that the evidence of PW.2 initially stated that he cannot say who is the driver of the vehicle but he identiﬁed the accused as the person who drove the vehicle. PW.1 also claims to have seen the accused as the driver of the vehicle. Added to that, the vehicle is said to have been inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the particulars therein should have been given either by the owner of the vehicle or the accused himself or can be seen from the records. In that the name of the accused was speciﬁcally given as the driver of the vehicle. In fact, there is no cross examination of PW.8 as to on what information this entry was made. In fact, the witness was not at all cross examined. Further more, it is the evidence of PW.9-Investigating Oﬃcer that he conducted the inquest over the dead body from 10.30 A.M to 12.30 P.M and at about 3.30 P.M the accused was produced by the public and he was said to have been produced at Lalapet Police Station at about 3.30 P.M. This fact was not disputed in the cross examination of PW.9 and there was not even any material to discredit his statement that the accused was produced by the public. The contention of the revision petitioner that when the incident is said to have happened at 10.00 A.M and if the accused was apprehend by the public, then he would have been produced immediately at the scene and the evidence of PW.9 that the accused was produced at 3.30 P.M is unnatural and unbelievable and consequently the benefit of doubt has to be given. Apparently, there must be a time lag from the time of incident and the time when the accused is said to have been produced before the police. But, it is to be mentioned that the inquest proceedings were conducted till 12.30 P.M and thereafter the dead body might have been sent to the Post-mortem examination and by the time PW.1 has gone there, it may be at about 3.30 P.M, to the police station. Therefore, it cannot be taken as a favourable factor to the revision petitioner/accused, particularly so, when the production of the accused and apprehension by the public is not seriously disputed. In fact, the First Information Report which was lodged immediately clearly goes to show that the public have stopped the van and name of the accused was also given. It also clearly goes to show that immediately after the incident PW.1 has gone with the injuries to the police station in a hired auto. Therefore, these particulars could not have been invented had it been not a fact. However, there is also no material to show as to how the prosecution or PWs.1 and 2 are interested in implicating the revision petitioner as the accused in this case. Therefore, there are absolutely no merits in the appeal and the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts below does not call for interference and accordingly the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The lower court is directed to issue N.B.W for the apprehension of the accused. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 08-11-2011 TSNR