THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 OF 2004 Date: 04-07-2011 Between: Shaik Moinuddin. - - - Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused. AND The State of A.P., Rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. - - - Respondent/ Respondent/Complainant. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is preferred by the Petitioner-Accused (for short, ‘the accused) against judgment rendered in Criminal Appeal No.75 of 2000, dated 31- 05-2004, passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad, preferred against conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No.170 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. 2. The Accused was prosecuted in Calender Case No.170 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of I.P.C. After due trial, learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, convicted the accused for the said offences under Section 255 (2) Cr.P.C. and accordingly sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of the payment of the fine amount to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC, vide judgment, dated 04-09-2000 by reason of which, the appeal was preferred which was dismissed confirming the findings of the trial Court. 3. According to the prosecution the accused drove the lorry in question rashly and negligently and caused the accident in question by which PWs. 1 to 6 received injuries. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred as they are arrayed in Calender Case No.170 of 1999. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent-State. 6. It is the contention of learned counsel for the accused that PW.1 Syed Quasim, de-facto complainant in fact did not support the prosecution version and PWs. 2 and 4 deposed in their cross-examination that they were tortured by the police constable concerned to give evidence and PW.4 deposed that one lorry came from the opposite direction and consequently the accused drove the lorry driven by him towards left side, and when the opposite lorry came down the accused drove his lorry towards right side and then it was raining and consequently the lorry driven by the accused hit the tree and the accident took place and absolutely there is no evidence to the effect that the accused drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and the trial Court and also the appellate Court failed to appreciate the matter properly and arrived at incorrect conclusions and hence the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 7. Therefore, it is to be mainly examined as to : 1. Whether the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to the effect that the accused drove the lorry in question in a rash and negligent manner, by reason of which, the accident took place? and 2. Whether the Courts below properly examined the matter and their findings are sustainable or not? 8. Point No.1: PW.s 1 and 5 did not state anything about the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, whereas, PWs. 2 to 4 and 6 supported the prosecution version and it is the specific evidence of PW.2 that while the lorry reached Kalavaral forest area at mid night it hit against a tree at high speed and turned turtle and fell down and PW.3 deposed similarly and he also deposed that he asked the driver of the lorry to drive slowly but the driver drove the lorry at high speed and it is deposed by PW.4 that at 01-30 a.m. another lorry came from the opposite direction and then it was raining and then the driver of the crime vehicle took turn towards left side but immediately turned the vehicle towards right side and then the same lorry hit the tree and PW.6 also deposed that they asked the driver of the lorry to go slowly but he drove the same at a high speed and caused the accident. 9. It is not specifically stated by PWs.2 to 4 and 6 that the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner but in order to ascertain the fact, the over all circumstances of the case are to be examined. In fact the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 and 6 amply provides that the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner at high speed even though prior caution was given anticipating the same danger. When another lorry came from the opposite direction the accused should have been diligent enough to drive his lorry properly, whereas, the circumstances of the case amply provide that he failed to do so. Further, there is ample evidence with regards to the other aspects of the case i.e., the scene of offence, medical examination and investigation of the case. 10. Nothing was elicited from the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 and 6 which is in favour of the defence version. It is pertinent to note here that PW.1 to 6 received in juries in the same accident. Even though it is the claim of the defence that PWs. 2 and 4 deposed in their cross-examination that they were tortured by the police to give evidence as per their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement, the same question was not raised before the Courts below. There are no merits in the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the accused. 11. I have gone through the record. The Courts below on the basis of relevant evidence adduced and after proper appreciation of the material available upheld the prosecution version. 12. Examining the relevant circumstances, I find no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Courts below so far as the conviction is concerned, but, so far as the sentence is concerned, because it is a case of 1999 from which period the accused might have suffered a lot by way of attending various Courts and facing the trial consequently and also facing the ordeal of conviction and sentences imposed as a result of which, he might have lost valuable part of his life and lot of money. I feel it advisable to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months while keeping intact the fine clause. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed, whereas the sentence of imprisonment is modified and reduced to three (3) months keeping intact the fine clause. __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J July 04, 2011. Dsh THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY 207 CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.983 OF 2004 (Dismissed) Date:04-07-2011 DSH.