THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1438 of 2004 Dated:17th June, 2010 Kamma Ramesh S/o Innaiah ….Petitioner/Accused And The State of A.P. rep. By S.H.O.,Tenali rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., …Respondents **** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1438 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.2004 passed in Crl.A.No.281 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of accused-Kamma Ramesh for the offences under Sections 304-A IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act passed in C.C.No.299 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.3.2000, at about 4.15 p.m, a jeep bearing No.AP 7T 806 was proceeding from Tenali to Guntur. It dashed against Kinetic Safari moped bearing No.AP 7 F 4704, which was coming from the opposite direction, as a result of which, the rider of the safari moped fell down and met with instantaneous death. The jeep also turned turtle and fell in a ditch. The driver of the jeep escaped from the scene. Pw-1 N.Jogaiah and Pw-2 S.Satyanarana witnessed the incident. Pw-1 presented Ex.P-1 report before the Station House Officer, Tenali III Town P.S. Pw-12 G.Lakshmaiah, Sub Inspector of Police, Tenali III Town P.S received Ex.P-1 report and registered a case in Crime No.124 of 2000 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and issued Ex.P-13 F.I.R. He inspected the scene situated at J.M.J College in front of State Bank of India, Guntur. He found a two wheeler Kinetic safari moped AP 7F 4704 and also Sivanagamalleswara Rao, rider of the two wheeler, lying on the road. He noticed the jeep bearing No.AP7 T 806 at the scene. He got the scene of offence photographed through PW-9. Ex.P-10 is the bunch of photographs of the scene of offence. He prepared the scene of offence panchanama, which has been exhibited as Ex.P-14. He shifted the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Tenali for Postmortem Examination. Pw-11 Dr. N.Srinivas Naik, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital, Tenali conducted Postmortem over the dead body of the deceased on 28.3.2000 at 11 a.m and issued Ex.P-12 Postmortem examination report, opining that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. Pw-12 examined PW.1 to PW.5 and recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 23.10.2000 in the presence of the panchayatdars at Government Hospital, Tenali. The opinion arrived at by the panchayatdars came to be incorporated in column No.15 of the inquest report. Ex.P-15 is the inquest report. He sent requisition to the Motor Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle. Pw-10 Y.Sudhakar Reddy, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Tenali received requisition from the Station House Officer, Tenali III Town P.S and inspected the crime vehicle AP 7 T 806 on 29.3.2004 at 2 p.m. Ex.P-11 is the M.V.I.report. According to him, the accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. On 4.4.2000, Pw-8, who is the owner of the jeep, produced the accused before Pw-12. Thereafter, Pw-12 arrested the accused and sent him for remand. After completing the investigation, Pw-12 laid charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as C.C.No.299 of 2000. 3. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of documents to the accused and examined him under Section 251 Cr.P.C., putting the substance of accusations leveled against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC, 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of the M.V. Act, prosecution examined 13 witnesses as Pws.1 to 13 and proved 16 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-16. The plea of the accused is that he was not the driver of the crime vehicle. 5. The learned Magistrate, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C and Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with Section 187 of the M.V.Act and convicted him accordingly, and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 304-A IPC; and simple imprisonment for one month each for the offences under Sections 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of the M.V. Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 6. Assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in C.C.No.299 of 2009, the petitioner-accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 281 of 2003 on the file of IX Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Guntur, on reappraisal of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, did not find any valid ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by judgment dated 18.8.2004. Hence, this criminal revision case. 7. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the material brought on record. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused submits that the evidence brought on record is solely insufficient to conclude that the petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident, and in which case, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner-accused for the offences under Sections 304-A IPC, 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel took me to the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 in great detail to convince that there was no opportunity for them to see the driver of the crime vehicle as on the date of the accident. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the judgment impugned in this revision. 10. The only issue that calls for adjudication in this revision is : Whether the petitioner was the driver of the crime vehicle? 11. Ex.P-1 is the report presented by Pw-1, who claims to have witnessed the incident. He did not mention the name of the accused nor furnished the description particulars of the accused. During inquest, Pws.1 and 2 were examined and they did not disclose the name of the accused. The inquest report also does not contain the name of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to prove that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and that the accident occurred due to his rash ad negligent driving, resulting in the death of the deceased. Except Pws.1 and 2, none of the witnesses claimed to have witnessed the accused driving the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time. 12. The entire case rests on the testimony of Pws.1 and 2. PW-1 claims that by the time he reached the scene, the accused was going away. Whereas, Pw-2 states that by the time, he came to the scene, the accused had already left the scene. If the version of Pw-2 is believed, there was no scope for him to identify the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. As per the version of Pws.1 and 2, they came together to the scene. Such is the situation; it is highly unbelievable that Pw-1 saw the accused at the scene of offence on the date of offence. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court failed to scrutinize the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 in right perspective, and thereby, committed serious error in finding that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle. Absolutely, there is no evidence that PW.1 saw the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of the accident. Even the Investigating Officer claims that the accused was produced before him by Pw-8. But, Pw-8 turned hostile. When once Pw-8 turned hostile, the evidence of Pw-12-the Investigating Officer that the accused has been produced before him by Pw-8 cannot be accepted. Hence, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that the petitioner- accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time is perverse and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of accused-Kamma Ramesh for the offences under Sections 304-A IPC and Sections 134 (a) and (b) read with 187 of the M.V.Act passed in C.C.No.299 of 2000 on the file of I Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenalii, as confirmed in Crl.A.No.281 of 2003 on the file of the IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, and the petitioner-accused is acquitted of the same. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner-accused shall be refunded. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:17th June, 2010. RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1438 of 2004 Dated:17th June, 2010