THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO.NALLA Crl. R.C.No. 28 of 2005. JUDGEMENT: This criminal revision case is filed against the Judgment dt. 4.1.2005 in Crl. A.No. 131 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Karimagar reduced the rigorous imprisonment of two years to six months while confirming the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer SI for three months imposed against the revision petitioner in C.C.No. 66 of 1999 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.1.1999 at about 11.20 p.m.the petitioner/accused drove the Auto bearing No. AP 15 U 4575 in rash and negligent manner at high speed and gave dash to a pole situated by the side of the road near Ragudu village bus stand and due to the hit, the inmates of the auto sustained simple and grievous injuries and one of the inmates by name Jani Miya died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Based on the complaint lodged by Md Rafiq, one of the passengers of the Auto, a case in Cr.No. 17 of 1999 under Section 304-A IPC was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla which was numbered as C.C.No. 66 of 1999. Before the trial court, the prosecution examined Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Exs:P.1 to P.4. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the petitioner/accused. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, found the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and convicted him for the said offence under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, by the Judgement dt. 18.10.2001. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, the petitioner/accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2001 before the Sessions Judge, Karimnagar who by the Judgment dt. 4.1.2005 dismissed the appeal but reduced the Rigorous imprisonment of two years to six months while maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer SI for three months. Challenging the said Judgment, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/accused. Heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that both the courts below failed to consider the fact that the investigating officer was not examined and the non-examination of the investigating officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that Pws 1 to 3 are interested witnesses since they were also travelling in the crime vehicle and they also sustained injuries in the alleged accident and that the other witnesses i.e. Pws 4 to 7 are the official witnesses and their evidence neither proves or disproves the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that the accident occurred at about 11.30 p.m. on 31.1.1999 and there were no independent eye witnesses to the accident and the law was set into motion by lodging the complaint on the next day i.e. on 1.2.1999 by Pw.1 and in the circumstances finding the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC by the learned Magistrate basing on the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and confirming the same by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and the petitioner/accused is entitled to be acquitted of the said offence. I have perused the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 who are the injured in the alleged accident. All Pws 1 to 3 have identified the petitioner/accused to be driver of the Auto on the date of the accident and they categorically stated that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question and they clearly stated the manner in which the accident took place. The evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is convincing and trustworthy. Nothing was elicited in the cross examination of Pws 1 to 3 to disbelieve their version regarding the accident. Since there are no contradictions in the evidence of Pws 1 to 3, the non-examination of the investigating officer is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Pws 1 to 3 cannot be said to be interested witnesses since no animosity was attributed to them to speak falsehood against the petitioner/accused. The conclusion reached by the learned Magistrate while finding the petitioner/accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC is based on the appreciation of the evidence on record and confirming the same by the learned Sessions Judge, Karimnagar cannot be said to be erroneous. Therefore, this court is of the view that both the courts below have not committed any irregularity much less any illegality while coming to their respective conclusions warranting interference from this revisional court. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ________________________ B.N.RAO NALLA.J 31.12.2009. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO. 28 OF 2005. DATED 31.12.2009.