THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1230 OF 2003 ORDER: 1. This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment dated 18.08.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: The accused is the driver of jeep bearing regn. No.AP04C 7083. P.W.1 is the driver of R.T.C. bus bearing regn. No. APZ 5653. On 25.11.2001, P.Ws.2, 7, 8, 9 and one Shaik Anwar Basha (deceased) boarded jeep driven by the accused to go to Kadapa. The R.T.C. bus driven by P.W.1 was coming from Kadapa to go to Rayachoty and at about 10.30 A.M., P.W.1 saw the jeep coming in rash or negligent manner and stopped the bus on the left side of the road near Moolavanka turning. But, accused could not control his vehicle and came to his extreme right side and hit the bus, as a result, the accused and the inmates of the jeep received injuries in the incident and one person died. On the report given by P.W.1, 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 of the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was laid. 3. The trial court took cognizance of the case as C.C. No.124 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadapa. 4. When the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 6. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial Court, by its judgment dated 07.01.2002, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C., accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C.; to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C.; and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C. 7. On appeal, the appellate court, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the convictions recorded by the trial court, but, as regards the sentence, held that, as the accused was found guilty of the major offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C., he need not be sentenced for minor offences under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. and therefore set aside the sentences imposed by the trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C., and modified the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 304A I.P.C. to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Challenging the same, the present revision is preferred by the accused. 8. Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the petitioner /accused of the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. and whether the judgment of the appellate court is correct, legal and proper ? 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that both the courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record in right perspective; that P.W.1, who deposed about the rash or negligent driving of the accused, did not disclose any physical features of the accused in FIR or during investigation, and so his identification of the accused before the court is not valid. Hence, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the petitioner/accused. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor contended that, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, both the courts below gave concurrent findings and the same need not be interfered with; that, from the evidence of P.W.1 and other circumstances, identification of the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle and his rash or negligent driving, are established by the prosecution. Hence, she prays to dismiss the revision case. 11. As regards the identification of the accused as the driver of the jeep, P.W.1 is the driver of the bus and an eye-witness to the accident. He identified the accused as the person driving the jeep. No doubt, he has not furnished the descriptive particulars of the accused in the F.I.R., it is not a ground to discredit his testimony with regard to identification of the accused. It is not in dispute that the accused also received injuries in the accident and was admitted in the hospital. The appellate court observed that, though wound certificate of the accused was not marked, it is found in record, and it shows that the accused was treated by Doctor on 25.11.2001 for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. Another aspect is the copy application filed by the accused for certified copies of F.I.R., charge sheet and wound certificate in this case, wherein he gave a sworn affidavit that he was the driver of the jeep and received the injuries in the accident. So, the contention that the accused was not driving the jeep at the time of the accident, cannot be accepted. 12. With regard to rash or negligent driving, rashness does not consist of high speed but consists 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. 13. The evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that after finding the jeep coming in opposite direction in high speed, he parked the bus on the left side of the road, but the driver of the jeep came on wrong side i.e. extreme right side, in rash or negligent manner in high speed and hit the stationed bus. Rough sketch of the scene of offence is marked as Ex.P9, which would go to show that the accident took place when the bus was stationed on the extreme left side of the road, while going to Rayachoty from Kadapa. Admittedly, the jeep was coming in opposite direction, which means that the jeep went to extreme right side and hit the stationed bus. There is wide road margin on the left side to enable the jeep to pass safely by the side of the bus. But, the accused had not taken the necessary care and caution to avert the accident, which resulted in death of one person and injuries to many persons. Considering these aspects, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly found the accused guilty and convicted him, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 18.08.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.20 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa ------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 25.11.2009 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1230 of 2003 Date: 25.11.2009 Between: Cherlopalli Prasad …Petitioner And State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1230 of 2003 25.11.2009