HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.11 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned XI-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Guntur at Tenali in Crl.A.No.36 of 2007, dated 09.01.2009 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. and also simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner-accused by the learned II-Additional Munsif Magistrate, Tenali, in C.C.No.246 of 2005 dated 18.01.2007. The said sentences were directed to be run concurrently. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.A.P.07 TT 0533 and A.P.7 Q 0086 and on 17.12.2004 at about 4.30 A.M. while carrying 15 passengers near Tallacheruvu on Cherukupalli-Tenali road, he drove the tractor at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which two persons were died on the spot and other occupants of the tractor received injuries. On a complaint given by P.W.1 to police, a case in Crime No.72 of 2004 was registered and investigated into and the accused was charged for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P21. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C.; simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. and also simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.36 of 2007 and the learned XI-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali, while setting aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C, confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A I.P.C. Questioning the said judgment dated 09.01.2009 passed in Crl.A.No.36 of 2007, the present revision is filed by the accused. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is legal and sustainable? POINT:: The fact that two persons died and P.W.1, P.Ws.3 to 9 were injured, who were travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident is beyond dispute and it has been accepted by both the Courts below. The injuries of P.W.1 and P.Ws.3 to 9 are also proved by the medical evidence of P.W.13 and P.W.16 and Exs.P6 to P11, P14 and P15. The evidence of the said witnesses clearly go show that the accused was the driver of the vehicle in question and due to his rash and negligent driving the tractor turned turtle and the incident has happened. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that from the material evidence on record, it is clear that the road at the scene of offence is full of pits and it is not worth plying and therefore, the question of rashness and negligence attributable to the revision petitioner does not arise and consequently the conviction is not proper. Evidently, as can be seen from the judgment of the trial Court, a plea was taken as if the accused was not the driver of the tractor, but, however, in view of the positive evidence of the injured persons, the trial Court rejected the said contention and therefore it cannot be doubted that the accused was not the driver of the tractor. The factum that two persons died and several other persons received injuries is also established as a question of fact by both the Courts below. The question is whether rashness and negligence is attributable to the revision petitioner or not. It is to be noted that for considering the rash and negligent driving of a person, it is not the speed alone that has to be taken into consideration. If a road at a particular point is bad and unworthy to ply, the duty of care is more on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Evidently, in the early hours at about 4.30 A.M. the petitioner was carrying 15 persons in the tractor knowing that the road was not proper and it was full of pits and he could not control the vehicle and consequently the vehicle has turned turtle and incident has happened. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that accident was beyond his control. It is clear from the evidence on record that cautious driving was lacking by the driver of the crime vehicle though he got knowledge that the road in question was full of pits and unworthy of plying. Both the Courts below as a question of fact accepted the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and there is no reason for this Court in a revision to come to a different opinion. So far as the sentence is concerned, both the Courts below have imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and it cannot also be said to be excessive. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the appellate Court against the revision petitioner-accused. The lower Court is directed to take steps for apprehension of the revision petitioner-accused to serve the sentence of imprisonment. __________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO 09-11-2011 Gsn.