HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.218 of 2009 Date: November 15, 2011 Between: Thammareddy Aruna Kumar … Petitioner/ Appellant/ Accused And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., High Court, Hyderabad. … Respondent/ Complainant * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.218 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed against the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC in C.C. No.196 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, which was confirmed by II Additional Sessions Judge at Parvathipuram. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/accused is the driver of the trucker (jeep) and on 11.6.2006 the deceased Bangaramma and P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Devukona and they wanted to return to their village Kattulapeta. When the deceased along with P.Ws.1 and 2 came to Devukona centre, the deceased Bangaramma sat in the trucker and the accused being the driver of the trucker drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which she fell down, received injuries and died. On a complaint given by P.W.1, a case was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, post-mortem examination was conducted and after investigation the accused was charged for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and the accused pleaded not guilty of the offence charged. 3. On behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P-8. 4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence charged and accordingly convicted and sentenced. The Sessions Court confirmed the said conviction and sentence. 5. The point for consideration is whether the death of the deceased was due to the rash and negligent driving of the trucker (jeep) by the revision petitioner? 6. There is not of much evidence about the nature of the incident except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 claims that the deceased was his sister and he was not able to say the date of incident and on the date of incident the deceased and P.W.2 went to the centre for getting any vehicle and she followed them. The deceased fell down from the trucker after she boarded it. He identified the accused as the person who is driving the vehicle and also saw the deceased getting into the vehicle and sitting in front seat of the vehicle. When she was getting to sit on the seat, the revision petitioner is said to have driven the vehicle with speed and consequently the deceased fell down, received injuries and died. In cross-examination he stated that when he reached the centre, P.W.2 was crying and by the time he reached, the incident has already happened. According to him P.W.2 has narrated him as to what has happened. 7. The evidence of P.W.2 is that on the date of incident she along with the deceased went to the bus stop at Devukona to go to Kattulapeta and a trucker came about 8.00 or 8.30 a.m. and the deceased got into the vehicle and as she was about to sit on the seat, the driver drove the vehicle at speed, as a result of which the deceased fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries to her head. P.W.1 is also said to have come there and all of them took the deceased to the hospital at Parvathipuram and thereafter Visakhapatnam and she died of the injuries. She identified the accused as driver of the vehicle. In cross-examination, she stated that there are about 15 persons in the jeep and she did not get into the vehicle and after the deceased got into the jeep, she did not get into the jeep though it moved for a distance and the deceased was anxious because she did not get into the vehicle and the she shouted to stop the vehicle. As the deceased was by the side of the door, she fell down from the vehicle as brakes were suddenly applied to the vehicle. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that from the narration of the evidence of P.W.2 it is quite clear that P.W.1 has come only after the incident and at that time P.W.2 was weeping. Therefore no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.1. According to him, the evidence of P.W.2 clearly goes to show that the possibility of the jeep moving with high speed and rashness and negligence of the driver of the jeep is remote. According to him, as per the case of the prosecution the deceased and P.W.2 went together and they intended to board the jeep and the deceased first boarded the jeep and before P.W.2 could board the jeep, it was moved and thereafter they shouted for stopping of the jeep. From the narration of the evidence of P.W.2 it is quite clear that the deceased was anxious that P.W.2 also did not get into the vehicle along with her and there is every possibility of the deceased being in the mood to get down from the jeep without being stopped as P.,W.2 did not board the jeep. 9. The possibility of driving the jeep with speed and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle appears to be remote. It appears the deceased having got into the jeep and about to sit on the seat finding that P.W.2 did not board the jeep and even before the jeep could be stopped as generally happens she tried to get down and contributed to the cause of the incident. Therefore, with the solitary testimony of P.W.2 it is very difficult to attribute rashness and negligence to the driver of the jeep and the petitioner/accused is entitled for a reasonable benefit of doubt. 10. Accordingly the criminal revision case is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner are set aside and the petitioner/accused is found not guilty of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: November 15, 2011. BSB