IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 OF 2010 Between: The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Murikipudi Subbarao ..... Accused/Respondent The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.209 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is filed by the State against the judgment, dated 06.08.2008, in S.T.C. No.44 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki, whereunder and whereby, the sole accused was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and accordingly acquitted him. 2. Brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Appeal, may be stated as follows: On 04.01.2005 at about 2.15 p.m., the accused, being a driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 9/Z 6713, drove the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner from Darsi Side towards Addanki and lost his control and dashed to the motorcycle of P.Ws.2 and 3 while they were getting on their motor cycle and caused simple injuries to them. The police registered a case under Section 337 I.P.C. basing on the report given by P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 were sent to the hospital for treatment. P.W.6 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.2 and 3 found simple injuries and issued Exs.P3 and P4-Wound Certificates. After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C., he 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 P6. 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. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced except marking Ex.D1. 6. The trial Court by not placing any reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused of the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution has to establish that there was rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 9/Z 6713 in causing the accident. Rashness does not consist only in high speed but consists also in not keeping in mind, the rules of safety and prudence. On the other hand, negligence is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public in general or to an individual. 9. There cannot be any dispute that in dealing with the Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal, though the Appellate Court has got full power to reappreciate the evidence available on record, but it will be slow in interfering with the findings in view of the fact that there is a presumption under law that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt and that presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal. Unless the findings are perverse, or not based upon any evidence, or admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration, or inadmissible evidence was taken into consideration, ordinarily this Court would not interfere with the same. In short, there must be compelling or substantial reasons while interfering with the order of acquittal. 10. Eight witnesses were examined to prove the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Taking place of the accident is not in dispute. Sustaining simple injuries by P.Ws.2 and 3 is also not in dispute. P.W.6 is the doctor who examined P.Ws.2 and 3, found simple injuries and issued Exs.P3 and 4- Wound Certificates respectively. It is not in dispute that the accident took place on the bridge. It is also not in dispute that before the bridge and the middle of the bridge and after the bridge, speed breakers were put so as to control the speed of the vehicle. Therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be possible for a driver to drove the vehicle rashly or negligently. 11. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would go to show that the driver rashly or negligently drove the vehicle and dashed to the motorcycle. What is rashness or negligence on the part of the driver has not been stated. The scene of observation report has not been prepared by the police except the rough sketch. One of the witnesses, P.W.5, did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court has not placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who have not stated how the accident has taken place. A bald allegation is levelled against the accused that the accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. That statement is not sufficient to base a conviction for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. None of the finding is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. There are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission confirming the judgment, dated 06.08.2008, in S.T.C. No.44 of 2005, on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 22nd January, 2010 KL