THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE CRL.R.C.NO : 1751 of 2003 Between: Pathan Lal ..... ACCUSED AND State of AP, rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRL.R.C.No.1751 of 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 29-10-2003, in Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2000 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Ongole, whereunder and whereby, conviction of the petitioner/accused of the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and the sentences of rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, 6 months and 1 ½ years, respectively, as imposed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, in judgment dated 28-02-2000 in C.C.No.265 of 1996, were confirmed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the revision case may be stated as follows: On 29-07-1995, at about 10 a.m., the accused was driving lorry in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the lorry turned turtle near Pillikunta thanda on Srisailam-Macherla road, due to which, the cleaner of the lorry Anjaneyulu and one Venkata Narasaiah died and some others, who were traveling in the lorry sustained simple and grievous injuries. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he denied the substance of accusation for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 22 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-26. On behalf of defence, no witness was examined, but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 5. Having considered the prosecution evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. On appeal, the said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the appellate Court. Hence, the present Criminal Revision Case. 6. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of the Courts below are correct, legal and proper and whether prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused? 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that there is no evidence to show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. The evidence of P.Ws.7 to 12 are mutually contradictory, therefore, it is not safe to place any reliance on their evidence, and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 8. The learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, contended that concurrent findings of both the Courts below need not be interfered with and that none of the findings is shown to be false or incorrect and that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record, and hence, she prayed to dismiss the revision. 9. The revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are illegal or incorrect or improper, normally, this Court will not interfere with the same. The occurrence of accident is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the accused was driving the lorry at the relevant point of time and two persons died on the spot in the accident and P.Ws.6, 14 and 15 sustained simple injuries and P.Ws.4, 5, 7 to 10, 12 and 13 sustained grievous injuries in the accident, and the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. 10. For convicting the accused, the prosecution has to establish that there was rash or negligent driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle. Rashness does not consist of high speed but consists of not taking proper care and caution in driving the vehicle and not following the rules of road safety. Negligence on the other hand is gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such care and caution that may be required to be taken in the circumstances of the case. 11. The lorry turned turtle, as a result, several persons sustained injuries and two persons died on the spot. When a lorry turned turtle while plying on the road, it can be said that the lorry was being driven by the driver in an uncontrollable speed. The driver must know that at what speed he can drive the vehicle on the road, but at the same time vehicle must be under the full control of the driver. In case the driver anticipates any accident, he should stop the vehicle. Therefore, the precautionary measures that may be taken during the course of driving the vehicle in the circumstances of the case have not been taken, thereby, the lorry turned turtle. 12. P.Ws.4 to 13 are the injured witnesses. The evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that the lorry turned turtle at Pillikunta Thanda. The evidence of P.W.5 would go to show that the lorry was being driven at high speed. The evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7 would go to show that the lorry turned turtle. The evidence of P.W.8 would go to show that the accused stopped the lorry near Nerajamula Thanda and consumed arrack and thereafter, started the vehicle and unable to control the lorry, hence, the lorry turned turtle. 13. From the above overwhelming evidence, it is clear that the accident was caused due to rash or negligent driving of the lorry by the accused. Further, he was in a drunken condition at the time of occurrence of accident. At the time of incident, more than 20 persons, were traveling in the lorry, the driver has to be careful in such circumstances in driving the lorry. But he has not taken much care and precaution, more than ten persons sustained injuries and five persons died in the accident. 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has rightly found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted the sentenced him and the said convictions and sentences were also confirmed by the lower appellate Court. None of the findings is shown to be illegal or improper or incorrect. Therefore, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the convictions and sentences imposed against the petitioner-accused by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court in its judgment dated 29-10-2003 in Crl.A.No.38 of 2000. ____________________ 11th November, 2009 kvr