THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 49 of 2009 ORDER: The accused in C.C.No.239 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palamaner, who was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and further convicted under Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each, the said conviction for the above offences has been confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.141 of 2006 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor, is the revision petitioner herein. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2001 at about 9.30 p.m. the accused, being the driver of the lorry bearing No.TNM 2995, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and near Green Park Hotel in the outskirts of Palamaner town dashed against a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP03/D-1323, as a result of which, two persons by name K.V.Balaji and Y.Vijayasekhar Reddy received injuries and died. The vehicle was not stopped and thereafter, the police registered a case in Cr.No.87 of 2001 and inquest was held over the dead bodies of the deceased persons and they were sent for post mortem examination. Subsequently, according to the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.5 and 6, who were said to be travelling in the said lorry, came to the police station on 25.07.2001 and claimed that they travelled in the lorry, which has hit the motorcycle near the Green Park Hotel and basing on the statements of these witnesses the lorry, which was involved in the accident, is mentioned as lorry bearing No.TNM 2995 and subsequently an identification of the accused is said to have been conducted whereunder P.Ws.5 and 6 identified the accused and the police have filed a charge sheet against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty in the lower Court. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and marked Exs.P-1 to P-22 and on behalf of the accused Ex.D-1 was marked. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) and thereafter he was found guilty and convicted and sentenced. The lower appellate Court also confirmed the conviction and sentence. The points for consideration are 1. Whether the lorry bearing No.TNM 2995 was involved in the accident on 01.07.2001 and caused the death of the deceased persons? 2. Whether the accused drove the lorry rashly and negligently and caused the death of the deceased persons? POINTS: So far as the cause of death of the deceased persons is concerned, there is not of much dispute and the post mortem examination, medical evidence and observation at the scene of offence in front of the Green Park Hotel, clearly goes to show that the deceased persons were hit by a lorry, when they were going on a motorcycle on 01.07.2001 at about 9.30 p.m. It is also not in dispute that a crime was initially registered against an unknown lorry and unnamed accused. The only point that has to be considered is whether the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, being relied upon by the lower Courts is legal and sustainable. According to the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, they were travelling in the lorry with a load of vegetables and the evidence of P.W.5 goes to show that he has noted down the number of the lorry suspecting that it hit the motorcycle in front of Green Park Hotel. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is that 25 days later they came to know from the news item about the death of those persons and consequently they have gone to the police station and gave the information about the involvement of the lorry in which they have travelled. Evidently, P.Ws.5 and 6 are vegetable vendors and whenever they go out, they will not be going on a particular lorry for transport of their vegetables and whichever lorry is available, they will be boarding it and transporting the vegetables. Even according to the evidence of P.W.5, he claims to have noted the number of the lorry only due to the suspicion that it has hit the two-wheeler. If that be so, it is for him to have produced the diary in which he has noted the number of the lorry. Furthermore, it is not uncommon that whenever a death in motor accident occurred, the news will be published immediately on the next day in the newspaper and it will be known to the people in and around that area. The claim of P.Ws.5 and 6 that 25 days later they came to know about the death of the deceased persons by seeing the news item apparently appears to be unbelievable and it cannot be accepted. When P.W.5 has suspected the involvement of the lorry and noted its number, he could have informed any of the neighbours or in the village. Added to that, when he has got a suspicion about hitting against the motorcycle, he could have as well asked the driver of the lorry to stop it or questioned the driver of the lorry. The conduct of P.W.5 does not appear to be reasonable. Furthermore, the lorry was also said to have been stopped at the check-post and also at the petrol bunk, even then also no effort was made by P.Ws.5 and 6 to know from the other occupants of the lorry or from the driver or cleaner as to whether the lorry was involved in any motor accident. The cleaner and driver of the vehicle are said to be speaking in Tamil and the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 does not show that they are well acquainted with the said language. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, there is any amount of doubt about the truthfulness of the version of P.Ws.5 and 6 in giving the number of the lorry 25 days after the incident and if the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 is excluded, there is no evidence about the involvement of the lorry and, therefore, the accused is entitled for the reasonable benefit of doubt. Therefore, the accused is found not guilty. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Courts below is set aside. ________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 28-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 49 of 2009 DATE: 28-11-2011 MR