THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.155 & 181 of 2006 Date: 11.03.2011 Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2006: Between: Gajjala Lakshmana Rao …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent Crl.R.C.No.181 of 2006: Between: Vullaganti Srinivasa Rao …..Petitioner And The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …..Respondent THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Nos.155 & 181 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: This common order dispossess of both the revisions. Crl.R.C.No.181 of 2006 is laid by the 1st accused in C.C.No.253 of 2003 on the file of the VI Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. Crl.R.C.No.155 of 2006 is by 2nd accused in the same case. Both the accused allegedly committed the offences under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC. A-1 and A-2 were the drivers of auto rickshaws bearing Nos.AP7V 5235 and AP7X 5797. They allegedly drove their respective autos in a rash and negligent manner on 29.7.2003 leading to collision of the two autos. One Podili Sivaiah sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and subsequently died. P.Ws.1 to 3 who were passengers in the autos sustained simple injuries. Police considered that the accident was due to the negligence of A-1 and A-2 in driving their respective autos in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Ex.P-1 to 28 were marked by the prosecution. The learned trial Judge found both the accused guilty of the offences under Section 337 IPC and 304-A IPC. He sentenced each of the accused to six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. He also imposed fine of Rs.300/- each against A-1 and A- 2 for the offence under Section 337 IPC with appropriate default sentence. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, A-1 preferred Crl.A.No.424 of 2004 before the IX Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Guntur. A-2 preferred Crl.A.No.413 of 2004 before the same Court. The learned IX Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C), Guntur dismissed both the appeals. He not only confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but, also confirmed the sentence recorded by the trial Court. Questioning the same, the petitioners who are A-1 and A-2 preferred these two revisions. As the conviction against both the accused arose through the same judgment, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the both the revisions through this common judgment. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.181 of 2006 is by A-1. It is the case of Sri K.Srinivas, learned Counsel for A-1 that the offence occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of A-2 and that there was no rash and negligent conduct on the part of A-1 in the incident. He submitted that the trial Court and the appellate Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and that the case against A-1 is not made out for the offence either under Section 337 IPC or under Section 304-A IPC. P.W.1 is a passenger seated in the auto driven by A-1. He deposed in his chief examination at the outset that A-2 was driving the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. However, in his chief examination itself, P.W.1 deposed that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of A-1 and A-2 and not on account of the rash and negligent driving of A-2 alone. P.W.2 was a passenger in one of the autos of the accused, having accompanied by her mother. It is not clear in which auto P.W.2 was travelling at the time of the incident. She claimed that P.W.1 sustained injuries in the accident. I, therefore, assume that P.W.2 was also travelling in the auto of A-1 in which P.W.1 was travelling at the time of incident. Her evidence is that both the autos were driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in the collision of both the autos. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.2. She was also one of the passengers in the auto of A-1. Her evidence is also that drivers of both the autos had driven the autos in a rash and negligent manner. P.W.4 was a passer-by near whose house the accident occurred. He deposed that both the autos were driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respective drivers of the autos. P.Ws.5 to 12 are not eyewitnesses for the accident. As rightly submitted by Sri K.Srinivas, Counsel for A-1 and Sri L.Ranjith, Counsel for A-2, the evidence of P.W.1 is crucial in determining whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of A-1 and A-2 or otherwise. P.Ws.1 to 4 agreed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the autos. There is no dispute that A-1 and A-2 were the drivers of the autos at the time of the accident. Where P.Ws.1 to 4 corroborated each other regarding the mode and manner of the accident, I have no hesitation to accept the finding of the learned trial Judge as confirmed by the learned appellate Judge that A-1 and A-2 were guilty of the offence under Section 337 IPC as well as under Section 304-A IPC. The question, however, is as to the quantum of punishment to be imposed against each of the accused. I consider that both the accused deserve equal treatment as the evidence discloses that there was equal negligence on the part of both the accused. Added to it, both the accused are auto drivers. While A-1 was 27 years old, A-2 was 26 years old at the time of accident. I, therefore, consider that both the accused deserve equal treatment so far as punishment is concerned. One of the passengers died in the accident. However, the accident occurred way back on 29.7.2003. The accident occurred nearly 8 years ago, which is factor in favour of the accused. But, the accused are found guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, working out against the accused. Each of the accused is said to be in jail about for 5 days. However, neither of the accused was involved in any offence under Sections 337, 338 or 304-A IPC after the present accident. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to convert the imprisonment recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court to imprisonment already undergone by each of the accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. In as much as the fine imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court for the offence under Section 337 IPC, the same deserves to be maintained. In the result, the two revision petitioners are found guilty for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC as held by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court. The imposition of fine of Rs.300/- by the trial Court against each of the accused for the offence under Section 337 IPC is confirmed. The sentence of imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A IPC as recorded by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is reduced to sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the petitioners. The revision petitions are accordingly partly allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR 11.03.2011 TJMR THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NOs.155 & 181 of 2006 DATE: 11.03.2011