HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1452 OF 2006 DATED: 30.08.2011 BETWEEN: The State of A.P. Rep.by Public Prosecutor .. Appellant And Kollimalla Venkata Ramana .. Respondent HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1452 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15.06.2004 passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalle in C.C.No.201 of 1999 acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. 2. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused. 3. It was the case of the prosecution that on 10.04.1999 at about 8.30 AM, the deceased girl Boddeda Annapoorna, aged 11 years was proceeding on the road to purchase a ball pen refill and when she reached Vijayaramarajupeta, the respondent drove the lorry bearing No. AP 31 U 4235 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn and dashed the girl, as a result of which, the girl sustained severe injuries and died while she was being shifted to the hospital. 4. PW.1 is the father of the deceased girl. Basing on his report, a case in Crime No.86 of 1999 came to be registered against the accused in Anakapalle Traffic Police Station. The offence was investigated into and a charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.16. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent-accused. 6. The learned trial Court on a consideration of the entire evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could not be able to establish the identity of the accused by convincing evidence and that the trip sheet was not seized by the Investigating Officer which according to the learned trial Court creates a doubt regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the incident. Recording the said findings the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. 7. PWs.2 to 4 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. They stated before the trial Court that the lorry came at high speed in a busy road near the village and dashed the girl, proceeded 150 feet ahead and stopped, thereafter the respondent got down from the lorry and fled away. All the three witnesses stated before the learned trial Court that they identified the respondent, who stopped the lorry and ran away. Further the investigating officer-PW.10 stated in his evidence that three days after the incident, the respondent surrendered before him in the police station stating that he was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at relevant time. Except making a general denial to the questions put by the trial Court when the respondent was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he did not specifically state that he was not the person, who was driving the lorry at relevant time. The learned trial Court took an erroneous view that since the test identification parade was not conducted by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, the evidence of eyewitnesses which was given before the Court cannot be relied upon. As to this, it may be said that there is no hard and fast rule that the test identification parade should be conducted in each and every case. Normally the test identification parade will be conducted by the Investigating Officer only for the purpose of satisfying himself about the identity of the accused, if at all there is any doubt as to the identity. The evidence given during the test identification parade is only corroborative evidence, whereas the evidence given by the witnesses before the Court is a substantive piece of evidence and the Court can rely on the evidence of the eyewitnesses given before the Court even in the absence of any test identification parade conducted by the investigating agency. Moreover, in this case, the incident occurred at 8.30 AM. As could be seen from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the lorry proceeded up to a distance of 150 feet and then stopped. The respondent got down from the lorry and ran away. Therefore, there was sufficient time and opportunity for PWs.2 and 3 to identify the respondent/accused. The learned trial Court in my view had fallen into error in coming to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence regarding the identity of accused and that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the accused. 8. As regards the rash and negligent driving of the accused, the incident occurred on a busy road in the village while approaching the village, the accused ought to have exercised great care and caution and ought to have driven the vehicle at moderate speed since there will be vehicular traffic as well as the movement of pedestrians, who were passing through the road. The manner in which the accident took place as spoken to by PWs.2 to 4 clearly reveals that it was on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused. 9. For the above mentioned reasons, I am of the considered view that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the accused are contrary to the evidence forthcoming in this case and are liable to be set aside in this appeal. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the order of acquittal dated 15.06.2004 passed by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Anakapalle in C.C.No.201 of 1999 is set aside and the respondent is found guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and is convicted for the said offence. 11. As regards the sentence, the incident took place in the year 1999, by then the accused was aged 30 years. Nearly 12 years have elapsed since the date of occurrence. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent is having wife, children and oldage parents, who are depending on him. In any event, at this length of time, I think it not appropriate to award sentence of imprisonment against the respondent/accused. The respondent is therefore, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC. 12. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. ___________________ Date: 30.08.2011 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Criminal Appeal No.1452 OF 2006 DATE: 30.08.2011