HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.20 of 2009 Date: 9th November, 2011 Between: Sunkireddy Bal Reddy, S/o Ramreddy, 27 years, Auto Driver, R/o Seri Venkatapur village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. ..Petitioner-appellant-accused And State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondent-Complainant-Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.R.C.No.20 of 2009 ORDER: This criminal revision case is filed against the judgment of the learned IV-Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Mahabubnagar in Crl.A.No.118 of 2007, dated 20.11.2008 confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. imposed against the revision petitioner- accused by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition and Excise, Mahabubnagar, in C.C.No.13 of 2006 dated 03.08.2007. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was the driver of the Auto bearing No.A.P.22/V-0424 and on 15.04.2005 at about 3.00 P.M. while carrying P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased Chinna Hanmaiah from Khajipur gate to Sherivekantapur village, he drove the Auto at high speed in a rash and negligent manner in the outskirts of Burgupally village, as a result of which the Auto turned turtle and the husband of P.W.1 i.e., Chinna Hanmaiah died on the spot and P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. On a complaint given by P.W.1 to police, a case in Crime No.32 of 2005 was registered and investigated into and the accused was charged for the offences under Sections 304-A and 338 of I.P.C. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P10. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Crl.A.No.118 of 2007 and the learned IV- Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. imposed by the trial Court. Questioning the said judgment dated 20.11.2008 passed in Crl.A.No.118 of 2007, the present revision is filed by the accused. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court as confirmed by the appellate Court is legal and sustainable? POINT:: Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contends that there is no proof of identity of the accused being the driver of the Auto and P.Ws.1 and 2 are not known to the accused earlier and in the absence of any identification parade, the Courts below should not have rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 2 and should not have convicted the revision petitioner-accused. It is to be mentioned that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1, who is said to be travelling in the Auto. The time of accident is said to be at about 3 P.M and it is very easy for P.Ws.1 and 2 to identify the driver of the Auto having travelled for a considerable distance in the said Auto, that too at the time of incident during day time. Therefore, identification of the accused by P.W.1 and 2 even for the first time, in the Court is taken, still the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be ruled out because they have got sufficient opportunity to see the accused being the driver of the Auto and they would have seen him from very close quarter. Added to that, as per the evidence P.W.8, the accused himself said to have surrendered before the police and claimed to be the deriver of the Auto. If really, the accused was not the driver of the Auto there was no need for the accused to surrender before the police. The non-examination of the owner of the Auto is of no consequence since the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the factum of surrender of the accused clearly go to show that he was the driver of the Auto. So far as the rash and negligent driving are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly go to show that the crime vehicle was driven at high speed and evidently the accused could not control the vehicle, as a result of which it turned turtle and the incident has happened. The accused has not given any explanation as to the cause of the incident. P.W.6-Motor vehicle Inspector has stated in his evidence that there was no mechanical defect to the crime vehicle. Under the above circumstances, the opinion of both the Courts below that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused does not call for any interference and also there is no doubt or ambiguity about the identity of the accused being the driver of the Auto. Both the Courts below have imposed sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and it cannot also be said to be excessive. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner- accused. Accordingly, the revision case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by both the Courts below against the revision petitioner-accused. The lower Court is directed to take steps for apprehension of the revision petitioner- accused to serve the sentence of imprisonment. __________________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO 09-11-2011 Gsn.