IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No : 1930 of 2003 Between: H.R.Ravi @ Ravisha . .Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By Public Prosecutor. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No : 1930 of 2003 ORDER : This Criminal Revision Case under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) is directed against the Judgment, dated 18.12.2003 made in Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. 2) The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may be stated as follows: On 18.08.1999 at about 11.30 A.M the sympathizers of Telugu Desam Party and all the deceased persons numbering 60 boarded the tipper bearing No.KA 06 9147 at Maddipi and Kanchisamudram to go to Hindupur with a view to participate in the procession of nomination of Telugu Desam Party candidate in the election scheduled to be held on 05.09.1999. When the vehicle reached near Nayanapalli cross road of Lepakshi to Hindupur road, the accused drove the tipper in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and as a result, he lost control over the vehicle, which resulted the vehicle fell into a ditch of the northern side of the road and turned turtle. As a result, six persons died on the spot, 23 persons sustained grievous and simple injuries and two persons died in the hospital. On receipt of telephone message from the Government Hospital, the Assistant Sub Inspector of police recorded the statements of injured and registered the case. The police visited scene of occurrence and after completion of investigation, then police filed charge sheet. 3) When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4) To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 46 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-43. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5) After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for five months for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. On appeal by the petitioner, the said conviction was confirmed while modifying the sentence from two years imprisonment to one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C, from one year simple imprisonment to Six months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C and from five months simple imprisonment to three months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 337 of I.P.C. in addition to imposing fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C. and Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C in default he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months, one month and fifteen days respectively. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed. 6) Now, the point for determination is whether the judgments of the two Courts below are legal, proper and correct? 7) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the inmates of the lorry pressurized the driver to enable them to participate in the election procession, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver, that there is no evidence to show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentences recorded against the accused. 8) On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of the two Courts below need not be interfered with, that the evidence of P.Ws 3 to 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 23 is very clear that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 9) The revisional powers under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C are truncated, unless the finding is shown to be illegal or incorrect or improper, normally this Court could not sit over as it in an appeal against the judgment so as to reappreciate the evidence. Taking place of accident is not in dispute. Deaths of eight persons in the accident is also not in dispute P.Ws 1 to 23 are the injured witnesses. The cause of deaths of the persons as recited in the post mortem report that it is the vehicular accident is not in dispute. Similarly, the cause of sustaining injuries by P.Ws 1 to 23 is also not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle fell into a ditch by the side of the road and turned turtle. The question is whether the petitioner was rash or negligent in driving the vehicle. Rashness does not consist of high speed, but consists of not taking proper care and caution in driving the vehicle and not following the rules of road safety. On the other hand, negligence is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and caution that may be required to be taken in the circumstance of the case. The contention that the petitioner was driving the vehicle at the pressure given by the persons traveling cannot be acceptable. Even though the persons gave a pressure, as a prudent driver, he has to drive the vehicle carefully and cautiously and in case of urgency, the vehicle should be brought under the control within no time. The vehicle went out of the road and fell into a ditch, resulting it turned turtle. It is not the case of the accused that some other vehicle coming in the opposite direction and to avoid the accident of head on collision, the driver swerved the vehicle. The contention that the accused was not driving the vehicle cannot be accepted, in view of the substantive evidence of P.Ws 1, 12, 15 and 20, who clearly testified that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The accident took place at a broad day light and the driver has to take all reasonable precautions and care in driving the vehicle. If the driver would have driven the vehicle slowly and cautiously, the present accident would have been averted. 10) Therefore, the trial Court after elaborate consideration of evidence rightly convicted and sentenced him and absolutely there no grounds to interfere in the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 11) Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 18.12.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2002 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. _________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU November 16, 2009 KSH