THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.113 OF 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner who is accused in C.C.No.174 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wanaparthy was convicted for the oﬀence under Section 337, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the oﬀence under Section.304-A IPC; and further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six(6) months for the oﬀence under Section 338 IPC and also further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three(3) months for the oﬀence under Section.337 IPC, which was conﬁrmed in an appeal viz., Crl.A.No.141 of 2005 on the ﬁle of the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court) Mahabubnagar. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-06-2000 at about 10.30 A.M the accused being the driver of the lorry bearing No.AAC- 9924 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at Kothakota near bus stand and dashed against the stationed auto bearing No.AP/22/T/9981 as a result of which two persons were died and some others received injuries. The police have investigated into the case and after completion of investigation the charge sheet was ﬁled. The accused pleaded innocence. On behalf of the prosecution pWs.1 to 11 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court below found the accused guilty and aggrieved by the judgment, he carried the matter in an appeal and the lower appellate court also conﬁrmed the judgment of the trial court. Hence the revision. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the courts below is legal and sustainable? POINT:- This being a case of rashness and negligence attributed to the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was the driver and he is guilty of rashness and negligence. The evidence of PW.1 who is police constable said to be on traﬃc duty on 11-06-2000 clearly goes to show that the lorry bearing No.AAC/9924 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result, two persons died and the driver of the lorry ﬂed away from the scene and he inquired from the passengers in the lorry and he was informed the name of the accused and he is resident of Madanapally. He claims to have lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. He was questioned about the unauthorised parking of the vehicles and failure to check by him. He denied the suggestion that he was not on duty at the scene. It was also further suggested inconsistently that he warned the driver of the auto and the auto driver started without the passengers boarding and incident happened. He denied the suggestion that in order to save the auto driver, a false complaint was given by him. PW.2 is the auto driver and according to him he parked the auto and the accused being the driver of the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, two persons were died. He identiﬁed the accused in the court. He claimed that he also sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that due to his fault the deceased persons died. PWs.3 and 4 are the injured persons and they did not identify the driver and they were declared as hostile. The evidence of PW.5 who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector is about the opinion that there being no mechanical failure. The evidence of PW.11 is that he was Sub-Inspector of Police and on complaint of PW.1, he registered a case and on 14.06.2000 the accused voluntarily surrendered before him and he arrested him. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no proof that the accused is the driver of the lorry and he was falsely implicated. In this case, PW.1 who is the Police Constable has clearly stated that he made enquiries from the persons who were in the lorry and they gave particulars of the name of the accused. So far as the rashness and negligence is concerned, evidently, the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed and dashed against the auto. There is no reason for the lorry to go and dashed against a stationed auto but for the negligence and rashness. In the 313 Cr.P.C. examination the accused has not stated that he was not the driver of the lorry. In fact, the Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the lorry and gave Ex.P-4 report and it clearly goes to show that the lorry belongs to one Hussain of Madanapally and the accused is the driver of the lorry. Evidently, the particulars of the insurance, registration and ownership would have been given only by the owner of the vehicle and he should also give the name of the driver. When PW.11 has stated that the accused has voluntarily surrendered before him it is not seriously disputed. PW.2 who is the driver of the auto also identified the accused. Further more, the incident has taken place during the broad day time and the complaint was lodged immediately and it is diﬃcult to believe that PW.1 could have gathered the name and implicate the accused. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly goes to show the guilt of the accused and the courts below have rightly convicted the accused and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the courts below. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The lower court is directed to issue N.B.W for the apprehension of the accused. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 05-11-2011 TSNR