IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.R.C.No.768 OF 2005 Date: -04-2011 Between:- Neelakantam Shankaraiah .. Revision Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad. .. Respondent ORDER:- The sole accused in C.C.No.73 of 2002 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, was found guilty by the said Court by its order dated 29-01-2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.35 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda and the said first appellate Court, by its order dated 25-04-2005, had dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence as imposed by the trial Court. 2. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the accused preferred this Criminal Revision Case inter alia on the following grounds that both the Courts below failed to appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses and other material on record in proper perspective; that both the Courts failed to see that the evidence of P.W.2 was vague and it did not disclose any rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner/accused; that both the Courts failed to see that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined and thereby, misdirected in finding the accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and that the facts of the case did not attract the provisions of Section 304-A I.P.C. 3. The facts in brief are that on 12-11-2002, the petitioner/accused had engaged the deceased and de facto complainant, who are brothers, to unload the paddy bags from the tractor at Nalgonda market; that both of them had boarded the tractor bearing No.AP 24U 1632; that both of them were sitting on the mud guards and that when the tractor was a kilometer away from Pedda Suraram, the driver of it drove it at high speed in rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased fell down and came under its trailor. He suffered bleeding injuries, that the tractor driver/accused removed him into Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda where he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at about 5 p.m. on the same day. His brother-P.W.2 preferred police complaint-Ex.P-1 basing on which a case in Crime No.97 of 2001 was registered by P.W.12-Station House Officer, Thipparthy Police Station against the accused under Section 304-A I.P.C; that after completing the investigation, the police laid charge sheet into the trial Court i.e., Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda. and that on the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, he was tried for the offence under Section 304- A . 4. On appearance of the petitioner-accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class: Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, had complied the formalities as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and examined the petitioner-accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C., alleging the substance of accusation. The petitioner-accused denied the same and claimed to be tried for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8, whereas no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner-accused. 6. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced and taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13 and also considering the other material record, the trial Court, found the petitioner-accused guilty for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as has already been specified in paragraph No.1 supra. 7. Aggrieved by the said impugned order of conviction, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.35 of 2004 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge (II Fast Track Court), Nalgonda. However, the said Court, by its order dated 25-04-2005, had dismissed the appeal confirming the impugned judgment of conviction as passed by the trial Court. Against the said dismissal, the accused has preferred this Criminal Revision Case. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused raised the self-same grounds as he has raised in the revision grounds. Further, he contended that none of the prosecution witnesses-P.Ws.1 to 13, except P.W.2, have spoken to as to the petitioner/accused being the driver of the accident tractor; that neither the owner of the vehicle was examined nor the R.C. Book was filed before the Court to prove that the tractor was involved in the accident. So far as the evidence of P.W.2 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that he is none other than the younger brother of deceased. P.W.2 supported the case of the prosecution as to occurrence of the accident in his chief examination. However, he denied a suggestion in the cross examination that the petitioner/accused/driver of the tractor was rash and negligent in driving the said tractor and trailor at the time of the accident. PW.2 also denied another suggestion that since his deceased brother was in drunken condition, he fell down from the tractor. According to him, P.Ws.3 and 4 reached there after the accident and observed as to what happened there. Learned counsel submits that P.Ws.3 and 4 arrived there only after the accident and as such, they were not eye witnesses to the accident. Therefore, their evidence is irrelevant as to the circumstances leading to the accident and in any case, their evidence does not prove that the petitioner/accused was the driver of the tractor at the time of the accident and that he was rash and negligent in driving the said tractor. He further submits that even the evidence of P.W.2 does not disclose the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner/accused in driving the tractor at the time of the accident. Therefore, he contends that both the Courts below failed to take note of the same and wrongly came to a conclusion that the petitioner/accused was guilty of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. P.Ws.3 and 4 have testified on similar lines that they did not see how the deceased fell down from the tractor. However, they found the deceased with injuries when they reached the place of accident. P.W.5 is wife of the deceased. Her evidence is not material to prove the case of the prosecution as she was not an eye witness to the accident. P.W.6 is the medical witness, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P-2 post mortem report under which the deceased is stated to have been suffered with seven injuries out of which, injury No.6 is grievous in nature, being fracture of ribs. The cause of death is stated to be due to shock due to multiple injuries. P.Ws.7 and 8 were mediators to Ex.P-3-scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P-4-inquest report. They have supported the prosecution case to the extent of they being the mediators to the aforesaid panchanama. P.W.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who has issued Ex.P-5-Motor Vehicle Inspector report stating that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner/accused that though P.Ws.1, 10 and 11 were examined as eye witnesses to the accident, the evidence of PW.1 does not disclose that he was an eye witness to the accident. His evidence reveals that as people have gathered there, he too went there and found the deceased with injuries at the place of accident. P.Ws.10 and 11 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.12 is the first Investigating Officer, who had registered the crime whereas P.W.13 is the second Investigating Officer, who after completion of the investigation, laid charge sheet into Court. Therefore, it is contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1, 10 and 11 is of no consequence to the case of the prosecution. So also the evidence of Investigating Officers-P.Ws.12 and 13. It is also contended that since rash and negligent act of driving the tractor is a sine qua non for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., the same has not been spoken to by any of the witnesses. 9. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of conviction as passed by the trial court and as confirmed by the appellate court. 10. Having regard to the evidence on record and submissions made by both sides, it is to be seen that the accident had occurred in the year 2004 and that there is no conclusive proof that the revision petitioner- accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the revision petitioner-accused is said to have been in judicial custody for 29 days. Therefore, this court is of the view that the sentence of imprisonment may be modified. As such, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year passed by the trial court and as confirmed by the first appellate court is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, while maintaining the conviction and fine. 11. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modification. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 15-04-2011 AMD/Stp THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL.R.C.No.768 OF 2005 Date:15 -04-2011