IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1257 OF 2004 Between: Mankala Rajaiah ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Public Prosecutor ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1257 OF 2004 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C”), is directed against the Judgment, dated 18.06.2004, Crl.A.No.72 of 2003, on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. 2. The brief facts, that are necessary for disposal of the present Criminal Revision Case, may be stated as follows: On 08.11.1999, the deceased, Basaraveni Pochaiah, was driving the jeep bearing No.AP 7-T 647. PW.1 is the owner of the jeep. PWs.2,3,6 and 11 are the passengers in the jeep. When they reached the outskirts of Chenjerla Village, the petitioner, who was driving the crime vehicle bearing No. ADM 9727, came in the wrong direction and dashed to their jeep, as a result the deceased died on the spot and PW.1 sustained injuries. Similarly, PWs.2,3,6 and 11, who were traveling in the same jeep, also sustained injuries. Thereafter, on the report given by PW.1, police registered a case. PW.4 had taken photographs of the scene of occurrence at the instance of police. As the deceased died in the accident, police held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.5 and another. PW.8 conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and opined that he died as a result of shock and hemorrhage. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle. The injured were examined by the doctors and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet. 3. The trial Court has taken the case on file as C.C.No.138 of 2000. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 I.P.C., he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. 5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. 6. The Trial Court, upon considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 11, vide judgment, dated 25.04.2003, in C.C.No.138 of 2000, found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C.; further convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. and further convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C. On appeal by the accused, the appellate Court confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court, but reduced the sentence from rigorous imprisonment for two years to rigorous imprisonment for one year, while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and confirmed the convictions and sentences recorded for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present revision is filed by the accused. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the judgments of both the Courts below are correct, legal and proper? 8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused contended that there is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the driver of the crime vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently; that they simply stated that the crime vehicle being driven by the petitioner came speedily; that the speed is not the criteria to determine the rash and negligent act and that aspect of the case has been overlooked by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned judgments. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the concurrent findings of both the Courts below needs no interference by this Court; that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,6 and 11 would clearly go to show that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and hence, he prays to dismiss the Criminal Revision Case. 10. There cannot be any dispute that the revisional powers of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. are truncated. Unless the findings are shown to be perverse, or contrary to law, or illegal or improper, ordinarily this Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. A finding can be said to be perverse if it is not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 11. There cannot be any dispute that the prosecution has to prove the rash and negligent act of the driver so as to convict him for the offences punishable under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 I.P.C. Rashness does not consists only high speed, but consists of not keeping in mind the rules of safety and prudence. Negligence, on the other hand, is a gross culpable neglect or failure to exercise such reasonable care and caution, in driving the vehicle in the circumstances of the case. 12. No doubt, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, speed is not the criteria to determine the rash and negligent act. But at the same time, when the driver was not following the rules of road and certainly caused the accident, in such circumstances, the rash and negligent act can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The death of the deceased is not in dispute. The doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, opined that the death was occurred as a result of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained by him. Similarly, the evidence of PW.13 would go to show that he examined PW.11 and found simple injuries. Similarly, the evidence of PW.14 would go to show that he examined PW.2 and found fractures. Ex.P-14 coupled with the evidence of PW.14 would go to show that PW.2 sustained fractures. Any fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth is a grievous hurt under clause 7 of Section 320 I.P.C. Similarly, other witnesses also sustained simple injuries. 14. It is not the case of the accused that they sustained injuries in a different manner in a different place. As a matter of fact, taking place of the accident is not in dispute. The accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3,6 and 11 would go to show that the lorry being driven by the petitioner came in a wrong side of the road and dashed the jeep. That means the driver of the jeep was driving the vehicle on the left side of the road following the rules of the road. In such a case, when a vehicle comes in the opposite direction and dashes the vehicle, which was going on the left side of the road, rash and negligent act can be inferred. That means the driver of the lorry has not taken proper care and caution in driving the vehicle, as the jeep was coming in the opposite direction, which would be visible by the driver of the lorry. In such a case, he has to slow down the lorry so as to avert any untoward incident. That precaution has not been taken. That is the reason why the accident has taken place. The evidence of PWs.1 to 3,6 and 11, which would clearly go to show that the lorry came on the wrong side of the road and dashed the jeep, which itself is a negligent act. Perhaps, that is the reason why the trial Court convicted the accused and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Therefore, conviction of the petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. and convictions and sentences of the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. are confirmed. 15. With regard to sentence of the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C., considering the fact the accident had taken place long back; that the accused is attending the trial Court and the appellate Court for the last more than a decade, a lenient view can be taken. Therefore, sentence is reduced from rigorous imprisonment for one year to rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months, while maintaining the fine amount with default sentence. Period of detention, 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. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed with the above modification of sentence. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J July 08, 2010 MD