THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1167 OF 2004 DATED: 17-06-2010 Between: H.Devadas …Petitioner/Accused And State of A.P. represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. Hyderabad …Respondent/Complainant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1167 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision case by the petitioner-accused under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment, dated 13-07-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in confirming the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for brevity ‘IPC’), but modifying the sentence from one year RI to six months RI while confirming the fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months, as recorded by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Hyderabad, vide judgment, dated 12-09-2003 in CC No.1041 of 1998. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the prosecution case may be stated as follows: The accused who is the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAT 1205 drove the same on 06-02-1998 at about 10.45 AM in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the jeep bearing No.AP 22 9599 at Uppal Tankbund, resulting in death of one woman on the spot and another person in the hospital while undergoing treatment. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the scene of offence. On a complaint given by P.W.2, police registered a case, took up investigation, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no evidence. 6. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as above. On appeal, the appellate Court while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence as above. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that both the Courts below had given a perverse finding with regard to identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle in view of the fact that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 identified the accused for the first time in the Court after lapse of four years, that when it is the case of the prosecution that the driver immediately after the accident ran away from the scene of offence, it may not be possible for the witnesses to identify the accused and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 have no grouse or enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely, that the physical features of the driver of the crime vehicle must have been imprinted in their minds so as to recollect the same and identify the accused at a later point of time, that the concurrent findings of the two courts below need not be interfered with in view of the fact that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the findings of both the courts below are legal, proper and correct? 10. Revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 397 401 Cr.P.C. is truncated one. Unless the findings are based upon no evidence or perverse findings have been given by the Courts below or that inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration in convicting the accused or admissible evidence was overlooked, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. There is no dispute with regard to the accident as such. P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 were traveling in the jeep being driven by P.W.8. On 06-02-1998 at about 10.45 AM when the jeep reached near Uppal Tank bund, the lorry drove by the driver dashed to the jeep resulting in the death of two passengers. It is also not in dispute that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 were traveling in the jeep. The inquest mediators opined that the death of the deceased was due to injuries sustained by them. Similarly, post-mortem reports show that they died due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is not in dispute that Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle opined that the accident was caused not due to any mechanical defects in the vehicle. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the accident, the driver of the vehicle stopped the lorry and ran away from the scene of offence. P.W.8 who is the driver of the jeep which involved in the accident, did not identify the accused as the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident. 12. With regard to identity of the accused, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 is relevant. They simply identified the driver as the person who was driving the lorry. Admittedly, they are strangers to the accused. They were examined in the Court after lapse of four years after the incident. Therefore, in such circumstances, how these witnesses could be in a position to identify the driver. It is not the case of these witnesses that the physical features of the driver of the lorry were imprinted in their mind so as to recollect the same and identify him at a later point of time. Hence, the prosecution is obliged to explain in such circumstances as to how, the witnesses could be in a position to identify the driver of the lorry. No such explanation is forthcoming. Admittedly, police did not conduct any test identification parade to test the memory of the witnesses especially when the accused is stranger to the prosecution witnesses. Similarly, the Investigating Officer has not given any explanation for not giving requisition to the concerned Magistrate to hold test identification parade. The driver, immediately after the accident ran away from the scene of offence. In such circumstances, it may not be possible for the witnesses to identify him after lapse of four years. The Investigating Officer ought to have seized the trip sheet or other relevant documents to show that the accused was the driver of the vehicle. No such steps have been taken and no explanation is forthcoming as to why important document, like trip sheet was not seized from the vehicle though the crime vehicle was available at the spot after the accident. This aspect of the case has been completely overlooked by both the courts below and gave perverse finding with regard to identify of the accused. Simply because P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 identified the accused, the same cannot be taken as gospel truth so as to accept the same. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below against the accused are liable to be set aside. 1 3 . Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 13-07-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.121 of 2003, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The petitioner- accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of the same. Bail bonds of the petitioner-accused shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-accused shall be returned to him. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:17-06-2010. Hsd