THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the Judgment, dated 16.07.2004, in Crl.A.No.110 of 2003, on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, recorded in the judgment, dated 29.08.2003 in C.C.No.473 of 1999 on the file of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam at Gajuwaka, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision case may be stated as follows: On 12.07.1999 at about 07:05 A.M. while, Mandapati Ramachandra Raju, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) left his house on a scooter bearing No.AP 31 C 8360, to attend his duty, and when he reached Gonthinavanipalem junction on Kanithi road at 07:10 A.M., the tractor along with the trailor bearing Nos.AT W 3060 and AP 31 T 8056 being driven by the accused rashly or negligently dashed to the scooter of the deceased in opposite direction, as a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and fell unconscious. When he was taken to R.K. Hospital for treatment, he was declared as brought dead. Basing on the report given by Yellapu Bhanojirao, police registered a case, held inquest on the dead body of the deceased, observed scene of occurrence and got taken photographs. After inquest, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to post- mortem examination. The doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of multiple injuries sustained by him. Similarly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime vehicle, opined that the accident was caused not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C., he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were got marked. 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 or documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The trial Court upon considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate Court. Challenging the same, the present revision case is filed by the accused. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that except the highly interested testimony of PW.3, there is no other evidence to show that the accused was driving the tractor, which was carrying water tanker; that the nature of the vehicle itself shows that there was no possibility to drive the vehicle rashly or negligently; that the owner of the tractor specifically stated that the deceased was in a drunken state as on the date of incident and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of PW.3 is very clear that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner; that both the Courts below rightly found him guilty; and that there are no perverse or illegal or incorrect findings given by both the Courts below and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, or contrary to law, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the judgments under challenge. A finding can be said to be perverse, if it is not based upon any proper appreciation of evidence available on record. 11. The taking place of accident is not in dispute. When the deceased was driving his scooter at about 07:10 A.M. on the left side of the road, a tractor with water tanker dashed against the scooterist near Kanithi Road, as a result, he sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was taken to R.K. hospital, where he was declared as brought dead. The inquest mediators opined in Ex.P-5 that the deceased died as a result of injuries sustained by him. Similarly, the doctor, who conducted post-mortem examination, opined in Ex.P-12 that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. The scene of occurrence is not in dispute. Ex.P-4 – observation report coupled with the positive photographs and negatives as well as the rough sketch would clearly go to show that the incident has taken place near Kanithi road. From these documents coupled with the evidence of PW.3, it can be inferred that the deceased was driving the scooter on the left side of the road. That means he was observing the rules of the road. When a person is driving the scooter on the left side of the road and other person who is coming in the opposite direction dashes the said person, in such circumstances rash or negligent driving can be inferred. Because rashness does not consist of only of high speed but also consists of in not keeping in mind the rules of road safety and prudence. Negligence, on the other hand, is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such reasonable care and caution, which has to be taken in the circumstances of the case. PW.3 has categorically stated that the deceased was going on the left side of the road by driving his scooter. He also identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle. As seen from the photographs, rough sketch and the observation report, the scooter of the deceased fell on the extreme left of the roadside, which suggests that the deceased was observing rules of the road. Therefore, in such circumstances, dashing the scooter by itself is a rash or negligent act. Therefore, the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. Hence, the revision case is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 16-07-2004, in Crl.A.No.110 of 2003, on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. Period of detention, if any, undergone by the petitioner during the course of investigation, trial and after conviction shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 17, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 OF 2004 Between: Thokala Nageswara Rao .....PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1190 OF 2004 June 17, 2010