THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.1259 OF 2004 DATED: 17-06-2010 Between: Gunapaneni Venkateswarlu …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.1259 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 30-06-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2001, on the file of Sessions Judge, Nellore, in confirming the judgment, dated 29-03-2001, in C.C. No.316 of 1995, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur, whereunder and whereby the petitioner was convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for brevity ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months. 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. AP 21 U 1567 drove the same on 24-05-1995 at 13.00 hours in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while proceeding towards Nellore from Gudur side and dashed against the car bearing No. AP-7-5000 which is proceeding to Tirupati, as a result, the car driver Dasari Rama Krishna sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries in the Government hospital, Guntur. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and another received injuries in the accident. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died due to head injury. The doctor who treated P.Ws. 1 to 3 opined that they received simple and grievous injuries. On a complaint given by P.W.1, police registered a case and investigated into it. 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 to P8. 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 said conviction and sentence were confirmed. Challenging the same, this revision is preferred. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused contended that there is no evidence to show that the accused was driving the vehicle on the fateful day of the incident, that the accident must have been taken place due to the contributory negligence of the deceased driver 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 the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that the accused was driving the lorry at the time of the incident, that due to rash and negligent act of the accused only, the accident took place, 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, normally this Court would not interfere with the same. 11. Taking place of accident is not in dispute. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.P7-trip sheet would go to show that the accused was driving the vehicle. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of injuries. P.W.6 who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased died as a result of head injury. It is not in dispute that P.Ws. 1 to 3 sustained injuries in the same incident. They were traveling in the car and when the car reached Nellore at about 1.00 pm, the lorry being driven by the accused with high speed dashed the car, which was going on the extreme left side of the road. The presence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 cannot be doubted. Furthermore, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are injured witnesses. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased was going on the extreme left side of the road by observing the rules of road safety. When that is the case, if any vehicle dashed to the car which was going on the left side of the road, dashing in such circumstances by itself is a rash and negligent act. The care and caution that may be taken in the circumstances was not taken by the driver of the lorry. In view of the fact that the car was coming in the opposite direction, if the accused would have driven the vehicle slowly, the accident would have been averted. Therefore, both the courts below gave concurrent finding that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. The contention that there is no evidence that the accused was driving the lorry on the date of incident, cannot be accepted because P.Ws. 1 to 3 specifically identified the accused as the driver of the lorry and the same was not denied or disputed. Once the fact has been stated and the same has not been denied or disputed in the cross- examination, it can be said that such fact is admissible. Both the courts below after proper appreciation of evidence on record, rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 30-06-2004, in Criminal Appeal No.73 of 2001, on the file of Sessions Judge, Nellore. Period of remand, if any, undergone by the petitioner-accused during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED:17-06-2010. Note: Despatch the order immediately Hsd