HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1433 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against judgment delivered by the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam in Criminal Appeal No. 189 of 2002, dated 17.8.2004, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal while confirming conviction and sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikakulam against the petitioner-accused (for short ‘the accused) in respect of an offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC in C.C. No. 290 of 2001. The prosecution version is that on 19.7.2010 at 10.15 a.m. the defacto complainant, namely, Bhyri Krishnarao and his wife, (the deceased) were proceeding on a cycle and then the lorry in question bearing Registration No. AP 16 U 5864 came from behind at high speed and dashed against the cycle, by reason of which, the defacto complainant and the deceased fell down on the road and then the front wheel of the lorry ran over the head of the deceased, which resulted in her instantaneous death and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry only by the accused and he committed the offences punishable under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. The trial Court on analysing the evidence on record, convicted the accused for the said offences and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months, whereas aggrieved by the same, the appeal was preferred, which was dismissed, following which, the present revision has been filed. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that the evidence of P.W.1 does not disclose that there was rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused and he also deposed that he was not in a position to identify the driver of the vehicle and the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 is not trustworthy. Further as per the material available on record, the defacto complainant and the deceased were going towards Srikakulam side and as per the rough sketch of the scene offence, which was marked as Ex.P7, the incident took place while they were going on the right side of the road, whereas the scene of offence was situated on the back side of tea stall and so there was no possibility for him to watch the movements of vehicles going on the road and the Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below against the accused are liable to be set aside. I have gone through the record. It is the testimony of P.W.1, the defacto complainant that he was proceeding on the left side of the road along with his wife and then one lorry came from behind and dashed against his vehicle, as a result of which, the accident took place and he could not identify the driver of the lorry and it is further his testimony that it is true that there was no possibility for him to identify the vehicles passing by and it is also true that because it happened to be a busy locality, there was no possibility of any vehicle going at high speed on the road. In a way, his evidence is against the prosecution version with regard to the identity of the accused and also the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused. Further, P.W.2, owner of a teal stall deposed that a lorry came from behind and dashed a cycle and ran over the head of the deceased. He did not speak as to whether the lorry was driven rashly and negligently, by which, the accident is said to have taken place. However, in his cross-examination he stated that the tea stall was located on the national highway and the road was situated on the back side of his tea stall. He further deposed that there was no possibility for him to watch the movements of the vehicles, which were going on the road. Therefore, it is highly doubtful as to whether he actually witnessed the incident or not. On the other hand, P.W.3 deposed specifically that the lorry came at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. In his cross-examination, it is denied by him that he was stock witness of the police. He identified the accused as the driver of the vehicle. Further, I have perused rough sketch of the scene of offence, which provides that the accident took place on the right side of the road, which is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 that he along with his wife were proceeding on the left side of the road. Therefore, it appears that a different version is given with regards to how the accident took place. Therefore, it is highly doubtful as to whether the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner, by reason of which, the accident took place. Hence, for the aforementioned reasons, benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. The Courts below failed to appreciate the matter properly and gave incorrect findings and hence the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC are set aside. ____________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY,J Date: 19.7.2011 pnb