IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.81 of 2010 DATE: 15.06.2010 Between: Md.Rabbani Pasha …… Petitioner/Accused And The State through S.H.O, P.S Manchal Rep. By its Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.81 of 2010 ORDER: In this revision petition, the accused attacks judgments of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam in C.C. No.252 of 2010 which was confirmed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad in Crl.A.No.121 of 2007 by which the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- and was convicted for offence under Section 337 I.P.C and no separate sentence was imposed for the same. 2) It is a case of hitting of scooter in which the deceased and P.W-1 were travelling by the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 1136 being driven by the accused from behind. P.W-1 sustained injuries in the incident. While the deceased was being taken to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. The only relevant witness who spoke about the offence proper is P.W-1. Presence of P.W-1 at the scene cannot be disputed. He is one of the victims in this offence. He spoke to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the accused at the time of offence. 3) It is vehemently contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is no identification of the accused as driver of the crime lorry during trial. P.W-1 catagorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he can identify the accused who was driving the lorry. But, presence of the accused on the date of examination of P.W-1 was withheld and he remaining behind the scene. The defence counsel filed application in the lower Court on that day praying for condoning absence of accused under Section 317 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate allowed the said petition subject to identity of the accused not being disputed. The defence counsel in the trial Court proceeded with further trial without disputing identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle and without production of the accused for identification by P.W-1 after getting P.W-1 recalled for further cross examination. When the defence counsel in the lower Court was clever in withholding presence of the accused on the crucial date of examination of P.W-1 during trial, the Magistrate was intelligent enough to meet the clever activity of the defence counsel, by allowing condonation petition for absence of the accused subject to identity of the accused not being disputed. When identity of the accused is not disputed in the trial Court as driver of the crime lorry, it is not open to the petitioner’s counsel in this Court to question the same. Thus, evidence on record clearly proved not only rash and negligent nature of driving of the vehicle and also identity of the accused as driver of the crime vehicle at the time of offence. This Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution. 4) The petitioner’s counsel prays for reduction of sentence on the ground that it is excessive. 5) In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed, but altering sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J June 15, 2010 ksh