THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1892 OF 2003 (Dated 04.12.2009) Between: Muppu Venkat Reddy S/o Sathi Reddy …Petitioner A n d State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1892 OF 2003 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 17.11.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.211 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), at Nalgonda, whereunder and whereby, the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C and sentence of Simple Imprisonment for one year, as imposed in the judgment dated 31.10.2002 in C.C.No.69 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, were confirmed. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: On 18.12.2000 at about 16.45 hours, when Yenugu Shekar Reddy (hereinafter referred to as `deceased’) sat on a stool in front of the house of Muppu Sathi Reddy, the petitioner-Muppu Venkat Reddy drove the tractor bearing No. AP-24-T-4025 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, who sat on the stool. As a result, the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury on his head. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital in an auto, where he succumbed to the injuries. Inquest was held and after inquest the dead body was subjected to Post Mortem Examination. The doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the deceased died as a result of the injury sustained by him in the accident. On the report given by the father of the deceased, the case was registered. On inspection of the crime vehicle, the Motor Vehicle Inspector opined that the accident did not occur due to its mechanical defects. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid. 3. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, he denied the offence and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 5. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 31.10.2002, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as above. On appeal, the appellate court, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the trial court. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the petitioner-accused. 6. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner-accused of the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C. and whether the judgments of both the courts below are correct, legal and proper? 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused drove the crime vehicle rashly or negligently, that the name of Pw.3 is not mentioned in the F.I.R., though the report was given by his own brother and that; it may not be possible for Pw.3 to witness the accident in view of the fact that there is a 5 ½ feet wall existing between the house of Pw.3 and the place, where the accident took place. It is further contended that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in a right perspective and hence, she prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the petitioner-accused. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that, upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record, both the courts below gave concurrent findings and the same need not be interfered with; that, the evidence of P.W.3 is very clear that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle, and hence, she prays to dismiss the revision. 9. With regard to rash or negligent driving, rashness does not consist of high speed but consist 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. 10. The deceased sat on a stool by the side of the road near the house of Sathi Reddy. It is not the case as if the boy came on to the road suddenly without noticing the approaching vehicle. Pw.3, who is an eyewitness to the accident, categorically stated that the tractor being driven by the accused came rashly and negligently and dashed to the deceased, who was sitting on the stool. In this circumstance, dashing by itself is a rash or negligent act, because the driver is not supposed to take the vehicle to the extreme left or right side of the road. Therefore, both the Courts below rightly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. 11. No doubt, the name of Pw.3 as an eyewitness has not been mentioned in the F.I.R, which was given by Pw.1, who is no other than his brother. The First Information Report is not an encyclopedia so as to contain all the details including eyewitnesses. Pw.1 might not have seen Pw.3 witnessing the accident. In such a case, there was no scope or possibility for Pw.1 to mention the name of Pw.3 in the earliest report Ex.P-1. But, Pw-3 was examined during the inquest. His name was shown in the column relating to blood relations-eyewitnesses. Therefore, it cannot be said that at a later point of time he was projected as an eyewitness to suit the case of the prosecution. Considering all these aspects, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly found the accused guilty and convicted him. None of the findings is shown to be incorrect, perverse or illegal and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 12. Coming to the quantum of sentence, considering the fact that the accused was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident, that the accident took place long back, and therefore, a lenient view may be taken with regard to the quantum of sentence. 13. In the result, the conviction of the revision petitioner-accused of the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC recorded by the Courts below is confirmed, but the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year is reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The period of remand, 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. 14. With the above modification, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt.04-12-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1892 of 2003 Date: 04.12.2009